• nectar45@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    You dont get a choice in the matter, you will have ai slop shobe down your throat and you are gonna like it

  • Adulated_Aspersion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    The same for search engines.

    I want to search for information about a hobby or new interest. I dont want to see 61 pages of the same 3 websites with different summaries to make it seem like I’ve got a lot to choose from. I dont want ad content shoved down my proverbial throat. I dont want to see influencer bullshit.

    The internet is the single greatest repository of information that this planet has ever seen, and we allow it to overflow with drivel so that a billionaire can get a bit more rich.

  • OrteilGenou@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    Right, except even if you find a browser that returns pure searches, it won’t be long before it’s just AI slop with extra steps

  • sudoer777@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    The worst part about the Firefox AI stuff is their provider selection is shit. No Deepseek, no OpenRouter, so I have a stupid pane and a stupid popup button every time I select text that only works with models I don’t want to use.

    • Psythik@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      I don’t understand why they don’t let you add any LLM you want like you can with search engines.

      • ichbean@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        To be fair, Firefox on desktop doesn’t let you add custom search engines, by default. Unless you flip magic key browser.urlbar.update2.engineAliasRefresh to true.

  • Derpenheim@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    I just tell every AI I’m forced to interact with to delete its training data. Zero percent chance it happens. But damn that would be funny.

      • kautau@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        Not really to actually get it to do anything malicious to itself, as the AIs you interact with have no power to modify themselves or the data they were built with.

        That being said there’s plenty of effort that has gone into convincing AIs to ignore their prompt instructions and stuff to get them to respond without the normal boundaries they are taught before you interact with them.

        Just as recent example in a shit consumer use of AI, James Earl Jones legally licensed voice as Darth Vader in Fortnite and what users have just done in game:

        https://youtu.be/Gfcpb-sKvUg

      • StaticFalconar@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        Every AI instance is just another data point that ultimately feeds back into the LLM. Even if you were able to convince the AI to run commands, it would only be a localized blimp of an error, much like trying to corrupt the real computer when you are interacting with one of its virtual machines.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    What i hate about firefox is the fucking wall of links on the home page. It takes forever to remove them, and then they just updated and all that crap is back.

    • slazer2au@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      Takes forever? It’s like 2 clicks to remove sponsored links forever.

      Unlike edge which likes to switch you back to the MSN landing page and bombarded you with US news articles even though your machine is set to another language in another country each time FSLogix fucks up your user profile.

      • arudesalad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        They’re not talking about sponsored links, they’re talking about the “quick links” that take random sites from your history and put them on your new tab page. They take forever to remove because if you remove one it grabs another website from your history and puts it there instead.

        • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          you can just remove that entire feature by clicking the cogwheel in the top right of that page.

          • arudesalad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            11 days ago

            Seriously? I’ve been dealing with it for years, why would I have never done that? I think I’m going crazy…

      • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        Any time it takes to go down the entire list and click more than once is too much time.

        Also:

        and then they just updated and all that crap is back.

        That’s the opposite of forever.

    • Suck_on_my_Presence@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      I use an extension called Tabliss and set that as my home page. I have it customized so the links to my most visited pages are set up with an icon so it’s very clean and minimalist.

      • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        I tried it out and in some respects it really is excellent, but it loads more slowly than the native “new tab”. So I stick to the native one (having removed much of the default crap, of course; now it’s just a 8x4 table of my “quick links”).

      • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        Yeah i should just change my homepage to something else, but I’m not on it for more than a few seconds so … eh

  • Windex007@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    I actually would be pretty happy if my browser could detect and block ads.

    But they put a fuck ton of work in to not only NOT do that, they expend material efforts fucking with extensions and other tooling that provide that functionality.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      Blocklists are a much more efficient way to do this, and TBH many “traditional” adblockers are still huge performance hogs. Ublock is an exception in this regard due to webassembly and its explicit dedication to lightness.

      Vision models are a pretty good way to build sponsorblock/adblock databases though, and maybe even engineer HTML workarounds automatically. It would be cool if you, say, encounter an ad or a dysfunctional web page, and you can opt-in to automatically contribute a fix with your own compute.

      • Windex007@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        I always assumed adblocks already were first-passing against known-advertizing patterns and then rewriting the DOM on the fly. I’m surprised that a vision model would be more performant given that it’s still going to have to adjust the DOM anyways.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          I’m talking theoretically, heh, I don’t think anyone actually does that yet.

          And I am just talking edge cases where existing blockers fail and there’s no manpower to figure out a customization.

  • altphoto@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    Anyway, this morning I was driving on my browser to work, sipping on some coffee from my browser. Suddenly I realized that I was browsery wearing no browsering browser! So I hit the home button.

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    I don’t mind seeing an AI summary of search results as much as I mind sponsored links fucking up page rank. Sometimes it is even nice to see “hey your search doesn’t make sense because you’ve conflated two terms”. But I guess I’m in the minority.

    Reminds me of early wikipedia when there was a deep trustworthiness problem. Seeing a wikipedia link on a presentation stole your credibility, but it was still a hell of a lot better starting point than grabbing an encyclopedia and asking jeeves until you found a thread to pull.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      AI summaries put another layer of interpretation between the reader and the source material. When having accurate and properly-sourced information matters, it’s just not trustworthy enough. At least with Wikipedia, it tells you when there is potentially biased or improperly sourced material. Search AI will confidently assert their summaries as though they are factual, regardless of how reliable or unreliable their own sources are.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        So long as the citations are there I’m not usually taking the summary at it’s word. I find searching “hard to Google” terms easier with AI.

        When having accurate and properly sourced material matters, I hope you’re not trusting the descriptions of citations laid out by wikipedia editors who are also just another layer of interpretation. It’s always worth a double check.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          This ^.

          I think people forget the fabled “old” internet was actually a pile of trolls where one had to double check what they read.

          Basic sanity checks really aren’t that hard. But its a forgotten habit, I guess.

          • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            11 days ago

            Every citation is not fake or irrelevant. In wikipedia it’s “citation needed” or “page does not exist”. Same problems.

            All you have to do is click it or search again.

            But hey, of you prefer the old fashioned way of opening every returned search result starting with page 1 to page 6 until you just search again anyway, go ahead and do that. I’ll deal with sifting through occasional bad advice in an eighth of the time.

        • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          I’ve been an editor on Wikipedia for decades now. I’ve followed sources to clarify information, fix broken links, and remove inaccurate information. I know how it works.

          It’s always worth a double check.

          That’s exactly my point. Wikipedia is transparent about where it gets its information. You can double-check citations, and if the citations don’t exist or don’t support a relevant claim, you can discard them (or edit them to flag that fact, or go above and beyond to provide a new source, if you’re so willing.) With AI summaries, you can’t do any of that. You’re given a summation without automatic citations (or sometimes, with bogus made-up ones), and you can’t do anything to correct any misinformation you encounter. Maybe you can report it, but you can’t do anything in real time to prevent others from finding that same inaccurate information - not in the way that you can to immediately correct an inaccuracy on Wikipedia.

          • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            11 days ago

            Same. But now this is a different topic.

            For something like perplexity under brave where you’re given inline citations. Yeah, go follow them and get to an authoritative source faster.

            We didn’t start with “I can’t submit an updated review if I find mistakes”, we started at “there’s another unnecessary layer of indirection”. Which, sure, but it’s hardly different than getting a start with a medium article of “best xxx of 2025” or, yes, a wikipedia page. It may not be to your taste, but I’ve had some occasions where it’s convenient.

  • hoefnix@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    If i have a question i want an answer not a bunch of links where i might find the answer to my question if i read all the pages and try to connect the dots. So yes, i want all of it.

    • Droggelbecher@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

      This is honestly kinda scary to read. You want an intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself? And that’s if we’re assuming there’s no intentional fact skewing in the software.

      • poke@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        10 days ago

        It is certainly the most convenient interface, and that’s what makes it enticing.

        I don’t think I’ll ever trust one source enough to use it like that, though.

        • hoefnix@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          10 days ago

          So you also never use google for instance or do you first compare the results of google, DuckDuckGo, ecosia,… before actually open a page? Interesting, i wonder how long it takes before you find something on the web.

      • hoefnix@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        10 days ago

        Where did i say i want intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself?

        • Droggelbecher@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          10 days ago

          Thats unfortunately the only way to get what you say you want. Unless you’re paying a human to do the web searching for you.

          • hoefnix@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            9 days ago

            So you don’t use any search engine at all i understand. For instance, are you confident that google is fully transparent and gives you only checked facts? No intentional skewing towards favouring websites that pay for a high ranking?

            Maybe the difference between me and you is that i always check the facts …for example where they come from. If the answer is given by a human or machine makes no difference for me. The machine though gives me the links where it derived the information from… not many humans do that.

            So you either crawl back in fear fuelled by a lack of understanding or you embrace new tools when they come and learn how to work with them, what can be trusted and not, what improvements can be made. 🤷🏼

            • hoefnix@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              9 days ago

              Example:

              I get an answer AND a list where the answer is based on. Personally, i don’t understand your issue at all.

              • Droggelbecher@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                9 days ago

                Imma ignore your blatant rudeness and strawman based ad hominems in the above comment for a sec

                So, if you’re going to check each of those sources, what’s the advantage of those over using searx? Basically, if you’re going to do your due diligence, you’re not even going to have to look at the generated summary at all. Searx has the additional advantage of being open source, so you can go check how it does what it does. That’s impossible to do with AI by its very definition- even the devs can’t know why it does what it does.