Firefox
The latest news and developments on Firefox and Mozilla, a global non-profit that strives to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Related
- Firefox Customs: !FirefoxCSS@fedia.io
- Thunderbird: !Thunderbird@fedia.io
Rules
While we are not an official Mozilla community, we have adopted the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines as far as it can be applied to a bin.
Rules
-
Always be civil and respectful
Don't be toxic, hostile, or a troll, especially towards Mozilla employees. This includes gratuitous use of profanity. -
Don't be a bigot
No form of bigotry will be tolerated. -
Don't post security compromising suggestions
If you do, include an obvious and clear warning. -
Don't post conspiracy theories
Especially ones about nefarious intentions or funding. If you're concerned: Ask. Please don’t fuel conspiracy thinking here. Don’t try to spread FUD, especially against reliable privacy-enhancing software. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show credible sources. -
Don't accuse others of shilling
Send honest concerns to the moderators and/or admins, and we will investigate. -
Do not remove your help posts after they receive replies
Half the point of asking questions in a public sub is so that everyone can benefit from the answers—which is impossible if you go deleting everything behind yourself once you've gotten yours.
view the rest of the comments
It's... Challenging. Like the pet eating thing, there are many sources saying it's true and many saying it's false. Official sources can lie (Russia came to mind for no reason whatsoever), so we rely on sources we already trust, which is tricky and even subjective.
I imagine that "if in Fox then False" is a good start, but aside from that I can only think it getting extra sources, also a challenge without real time web crawling of the internet, were google and Microsoft are already light years ahead.
But if Mozilla can, for example create a sources list and even charge for the ability to be a default on said sources list, wouldn't that be a double win? The problem with things being unreliable can be dealt with via language. Like big red text saying don't trust this blindly.
They can also do intelligent searching and simply surface links.
Do I trust LLM summaries? Not fully. But how about the strategy used by an app like BeyondPDF for Mac:
Think: Firefox does the search, then gives you the sources and the most likely relevant excerpts from each. Consequences of it searching wrong? A small waste of time, but no misinfo.
Sidebar!
One can be against environmental costs of great machine-learning powered search, and offended by the arguable IP theft that created the tools, but it’s unlikely all those who say they “don’t want AI anything!” really mean that entirely.
“I don’t want or need the current version of ChatGPT for my use cases” is very fair though. Maybe they don’t have any SQL queries or Excel formulas - on the edge of their abilities - to build, or text to beautify, or quirky esoteric philosophy to bounce off a robot…
Pay to be the "truth" on a fact checking tool? Fox news is very interested.
Aren't Google and Bing and others paying to be featured in Firefox. What's the difference?