What search engine does Chrome, by far and away the most used browser be it on phone or PC, use?

Don’t all half-decent manufacturers do this?

No. That is phenomenally uncommon. To the point it’s almost unheard of.

Not only that, but it was vastly more power efficient, and didn’t have the glaring security vulnerabilities that Intel had. All while being on a worse Global Foundries manufacturing process.

Unless you were a PC gamer who also didn’t care about $/perf, Zen1 was the better architecture.

Zen1 was slower in gaming and most 1-2 core workloads, but it was immediately far faster in server, faster in highly-threaded tasks, was hugely cheaper to manufacture, didn’t have the huge security flaws Intel chips had, and was way more power efficient.

They achieved that while still being on an inferior Global Foundries manufacturing process.

Zen1 was overall better than Coffee Lake. Just not to PC gamers, the loudest online PC hardware demographic.

And Intel. Intel has been using TSMC fabs for a while.

They used to get a 40% discount, too, but that stopped recently when Pat Gelsinger said people should stop buying from TSMC because there’s a good chance they’ll be invaded.

TSMC’s CEO didn’t like that, and said “ok, no more 40% discount for you. Effective immediately.” (TL;DR’d, obviously).

You can be against the US’s tipping culture while at the same time being someone who donates to things lol

But yeah, definitely. For a lot of these things the funding has to be coming from somewhere and there’s no way donations are enough.

It’s not a strawman. You complained about Mozilla’s AI… That is Mozilla’s AI.

You asked who asked for this stuff… I told you.

It’s not biased towards “my views”. It doesn’t seem to be biased at all. Which questions do you take issue with? Can you elaborate?

What’s your issue with offline translation, or better screen reader functionality? That’s what Mozilla’s AI does, and you clearly have an issue with Mozilla’s AI. I’m giving you the opportunity to say what’s wrong about it (and so is Mozilla).

Definitely. CUDA has had a long headstart, and Nvidia were very clever in getting it entrenched early on, particularly in universities and such. It’s also just… generally does the job.

My above comment was purely on the gaming side

People buy Nvidia no matter what. Even when they aren’t the best choice. Then those same people complain about Nvidia doing the anticompetitive things they do.

The best is when people cheer for AMD making something great, only so they can buy an Nvidia card cheaper, as if the only reason AMD exists is to subsidise their Nvidia purchase!

Nvidia’s greatest asset is the mindshare they have.

People have been asking for translation in Firefox for years, they add it in a way that works well and is completely private, and people cry about it.

It IS optional and it ISN’T bundled by default.

If anything, they’re a bit annoying to enable, because you currently have to go into the settings to look for it.

I don’t think privacy or usability for blind people is a waste.

What do you mean who asked? People were complaining about lack of proper translation in Firefox for a long time. People were definitely asking. Google translate was (and still is) one of the most downloaded Firefox extensions.

And if you’ve ever used or seen someone use a screen reader on websites, you’ll know it’s awful. So Mozilla are right to focus on making the web better for blind people.

Yes, I’m aware most people aren’t blind, but that doesn’t mean those people should receive zero accomodation. Part of Mozilla’s mission statement is making the web accessible. That’s in their ‘mandate’, if you will. If people don’t want an accessible web, I’m sure there are browsers out there that make zero accomodations for the disabled.

And the survey is not written in a way to direct you towards answers that Mozilla wants. Did you even look? They give plenty of room to criticise.

Mate, that person hates Mozilla with such a passion they talk about it in their account bio.

40% of this person’s entire personality is “I hate Mozilla btw”. There’s nothing you can say to reason with him.

There’s nothing sketchy about their AI implementation.

Private, locally-run, offline language translation that doesn’t send data to Google translation servers is a good thing. I don’t see how that’s sketchy.

Or their alt-text generation for images to assist blind people in using the web. I don’t see how that’s sketchy at all.

What’s positive about Mozilla having private, offline language translation?

Gee I dunno. Maybe that you get to translate web pages without sending that data to Google?

What’s positive about Mozilla using image recognition to generate alt-text for images

Gee I dunno. Maybe blind people being able to browse the web better?

What’s the positive about Mozilla using AI to flag fake product reviews?

Gee I dunno. Maybe to stop people being scammed?

E: I’m assuming you downvoted because you hate privacy, blind people, not being able to scam people with fake reviews, or some combination of the above lol.

Private, offline language translation is not “no tangible benefit”.

Neither is alt-text generation for images to assist blind people in searching the web. That’s a massive feature.

E: idk whether you’re down voting because you don’t want privacy or because you don’t like blind people lol

It’s opt-in already, in fact you have to go out of your way to do it. And it’s currently only used for offline, private language translation, to my knowledge.

That is a very good usecase considering the alternative is to send it to a Google translation server.

I feel like people need to actually read beyond the “Mozilla adds AI to Firefox” headlines.

There’s nothing wrong with using an LLM for offline private language translation. It literally preserves privacy by not simply sending all that data to a Google translation server.

There’s nothing wrong with using offline image recognition to aid in helping blind people know what’s on their screen.

As for their “advertising” - you should look up what they actually did. It completely preserves privacy while at the same time not completely destroying the economic model that content creators rely on. It’s a good thing. With any luck, regulators will enforce it.

But their AI helps protect privacy? The main thing it’s currently used for is offline private translation that doesn’t send data to Google’s servers.

The other main AI feature they’re working on is AI-generated alt-text for untagged images, so that blind people can better use the web.

I feel like you’re doing the classic Lemmy/Reddit thing of seeing the letters “AI” and automatically freaking out, before looking into what they’re actually doing. We aren’t talking about ChatGPT integration here…

Helping blind people use computers is a good thing.

Private, offline translation is a good thing.

If they had called these features “machine learning” instead of “AI”, it would make zero function difference, but you wouldn’t be reacting in this manner.

I’ve never heard of that, but assuming that’s a real thing and you’re telling the truth, it still doesn’t mean you get to decide what the “point” of poetry is for everybody else.

You aren’t the arbiter of what people are allowed to enjoy or see value in. If ‘Poem XYZ’ resonates with a bunch of people, but you hate it on principle because of how it was created, that doesn’t make their viewpoint invalid. To think it does is extremely arrogant.

AI is 100% being trained using Lemmy.