- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t need or want any of that AI crap in my browser. Hopefully there will be a compiler flag to disable it.
For what it’s worth… I think there are useful AI tools. For example the offline translation feature that doesn’t send your content to google is something they recently introduced. I’d also like to see someone compete with a decent and open text-to-speech solution that gets wide adoption… And the idea of flagging fake reviews doesn’t sound too bad (I haven’t tried it.) I mean people are complaining about SEO making google unusable and fake news only ever getting more. I can see some benefit there - if done right.
But we definitely don’t need a Clippy 2.0 or another smart assistant. And I don’t think everything has to be embedded in a browser and make it yet more complicated and bigger, or implemented in the operating system. An add-on will probably do.
(Edit: And I sometimes don’t understand Mozilla. Why not focus on their core product and make that exceptionally great? If they’re already struggling… What’s with all these side-projects and dabbling in AI anyways?)
One feature that could be neat is having a locally-generated summary of a page, as well as suggested tags when bookmarking.
Uh yeah, I’m not sure. I’ve tried summarizing with AI tools. And there is the bot here on Lemmy that summarizes stuff… I never liked any of that. It’s really a mixed bag, from pretty okay summaries to entirely missing the point of the original article to bordering on false information. I think we’re far from there yet. However, it’s a common use-case for AI. Maybe in 1-2 years I can stop being afraid of misinformation being fed to me. Currently, I think the incorrectness of the information still outweighs any potential benefit. The more complicated it gets, thus making you in need of a summary in the first place, the more biased and skewed the results get. So I don’t see that happen in the very near future. But we definitely should keep up doing the research and pushing that.
Tagging and organizing is something I’d like an AI for.
Imagine spending hours writing and editing something with care only for an LLM to “summarize“ it, completely missing any nuance or sarcasm, removing any creative bits or humor, while also making the wrong point altogether. To top it off anyone unwilling to read your story, their time is valuable after all (but not yours, apparently), will now repeat the LLM’s interpretation to anyone they’d like, whether it’s accurate or not.
It’s an abysmal direction to go for misinformation and even more abysmal for writers. Good content becomes irrelevant and people become less and less willing to pay for a writer’s time and expertise. Why not write with an LLM if a large percentage of your readers summarize the piece with an LLM anyways? Just need more eyeballs to justify our Google Ads spending.
Built into a “private” browser or not, it’s just another nail in the coffin of a web built by and for humans.
I think you’re completely right with that assessment. Journalist used to be a reputable profession. And explaining things and processing raw information into something that can be consumed by the reader, deemed important. Especially getting it right. There is a whole process to it if you do it professionally. And curating content and deciding what is significant and gets an audience is equally as important.
Doing away with all of that is like replacing your New York Times with your 5-year-old and whatever she took from watching the news.
Can an expert explain this - https://aussie.zone/post/6869951
Comparing brave and base Firefox is unfair IMO. Brave is security hardened out of the box, where as Firefox is a general purpose browser and has telemetry in the form of crash reports and the like (which can be turned off). It can be hardend well through arkenfox, or using a fork like Librewolf. Comparing Firefox and chrome is better imho.
Firefox has many built-in anti fingerprinting flags (such as letterboxing, RFP, font limiting, and many more} which when combined with ublock origin are unbeatable. A baked-in content blocker like that of braves loses because it isn’t extensible. This website compares on only default settings which aren’t representative of the extent each browser can be taken but useful nonetheless: https://privacytests.org/
The website you mentioned is created by Brave Developers
Incorrect. It is created by someone who is associated with brave, but not a directly created by Brave. I am sure the tests is accurate (at least per test), but the testing criteria could be biased. It’d just be weird to the end up with Librewolf and Mullvad as a clear winner if the intention was to favor brave browser.
A baked-in content blocker like that of braves loses because it isn’t extensible.
In what way? I use(d) Firefox since the very first Firebird days, and Netscape Navigator before it, and I’m practically married to uBO (don’t tell my wife!). That said, Brave’s ‘shields’ blocker is just skinned uBO with some tweaks. It can add custom cosmetic filtering rules, additional adblock format filter lists, disable or enable JS (globally or per-site) and has built in fingerprint resistance. Aside from the differing UI, I genuinely can’t think of anything overtly missing as such.
I’m stated that because I know baked in features must wait for browser updates to get fixes (not talking about block list updates but the core itself). I also was basing it off a comment I read (can’t find sadly) on the limitations of implementing a ublock-style blocklist into brave. And thirdly, I have seen no mention of anything like ublock’s blocking modes (block 3rd party scripts/frames). Can you quickly select an element to block in brave?
I might have considered using brave as a 2ndary browser if it werent for the ceo’s politics (spending thousands to support anti-lgbt legislation) which I feel are antithetical to privacy.
And thirdly, I have seen no mention of anything like ublock’s blocking modes (block 3rd party scripts/frames). Can you quickly select an element to block in brave?
You can enter as many custom filter rules as you like, with adblock syntax support. You can select an element to block, yes.
Here is a graph the illustrates the block efficiency of ublock+Firefox compared to other browsers with/without ublock. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox
Despite the URL name, it shows bare browse Brave and Firefox+ublock compare at blocking 3rd party ads/trackers. It looks like this was updated November of last year.
Brave isn’t represented anywhere on the graph? Unless I’ve misunderstood you. That’s a comparison of Firefox with various ad blockers, and uBO with and without CNAME unclocking enabled. Brave also uncloaks CNAMEs, so that’s one place they are equal. Chromium based browsers do lack some abilities compared to Firefox, however. I have daily driven Firefox since the first day, but Brave and Blink/Chromium based browsers are undeniably faster at rendering (unfortunately).
Look at the bottom of the graph. Each grouping is per browser.
