Here’s what we’re working on in Firefox
At Mozilla, we work hard to make Firefox the best browser for you. That’s why we're always focused on building a browser that empowers you to choose your own path, that gives you the freedom to explore without worry or compromises. We’re excited to share more about the updates and improvements we ha...
You're viewing a single thread.
Any browser which only offers an AI inclusive release, I won't use.
If any company that produces browsers really, truly, cared about their customer base, they would offer an AI release and a non-AI release.
Edit: It's unfortunate to see that we have reached a stage as consumers that even daring to suggest an option be provided results in such responses. Good luck to all of you when you decide you want an option when a business does something you don't like with a product because clearly you'll have no one interested in listening to you.
At this point, AI is pretty much any line of code that the marketing team thinks sounds smart. It's really not a hill worth dying on.
What if the AI doesn't activate unless you explicitly choose to do so?
If it provably disabled all functionality and features of the AI, then I would find that acceptable.
So your idea is that visually impaired people should just cry about not having alt text on a lot of images? How would you solve this problem of recognising what's in an image without AI? I hate generative AI in most cases as well but I swear people hear AI and are so blind from anger that they fail to see what it actually is used for
No, actually if you read my comment my idea is that they can use an AI release of the browser, while people who don't want AI in their browser can use a different release without it.
In response to "So your idea is that visually impaired people should just cry about not having alt text on a lot of images?".
This is a loaded question. You shaped the question to be this way so that it would contain presumption of my being guilty of not caring for the differently abled when I have never done such a thing.
My comment just suggests that options are good for consumers, in this case the option of being able to choose if you want AI in your software.
If you have a real argument against that idea that is not predicated on presumptive guilt regarding a topic different to what I was talking about like in your first response, feel free to let me know what it is.
To clarify for you, my saying "Users should have a choice of whether AI is in their browser" being met with your "Then you must hate blind people and want them to cry" does not follow and does not constitute an argument to the contrary.
Ya usually I debate people but your idea is stupid as shit. The resources to do that would be astounding, and there's nothing inheritly wrong with using AI as part of the tech stack.
I'll usually debate people as well, but not those who resort to a logic fallacy as boring as ad hominem for lack of an argument. Seeya.
He did not resort to ad hominem. He didn't say that you were stupid as shit therefore he is right, he said that your idea is stupid as shit and explained why.
And yes, your idea IS stupid as shit. You need to brush up on logical fallacies because it's clear that you don't actually understand how they work.
Please go ahead and explain what the difference is between calling a person stupid and calling a persons ideas stupid, given stupidity refers to a persons intelligence by definition.
If you call someone's idea stupid, then by definition, you are calling them stupid by extension because that's what that word means.
If used in a colloquial manner I can understand how referring to someone's socks, or a device, or some inanimate object can allow one to call those things "stupid", but the fact of the matter is that referring to ones ideas as stupid is redundant to calling the person stupid directly because they both refer to the intelligence and original thoughts of a person and therefore literally mean the same thing by definition.
Furthermore, the notion that saying for example "Your shirt is stupid" or "Your idea is stupid" or "your feelings are stupid" instead of "You are stupid" is not ad hominem due to the colloquial usage is laughable as a fallacious argument only needs to attack the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument to be considered ad hominem, and if a persons ideas are not considered an attribute of them, I don't know what is.
I think I'm pretty brushed up on how this works, but perhaps you should take your own advice, thanks.
A very intelligent person can have some very stupid ideas. The fact that they are intelligent does not make their ideas intelligent as well. Referring to an idea as stupid is not the same as referring to the progenitor as stupid.
You do not understand how logical fallacies work. This is demonstrated by your responses.
Furthermore, saying the equivalent of x person is smart therefore they are right and as a result I am right because I invoked person x is an appeal to authority.
Ding ding, ok school is in session:
An ad hominem attack is when someone tries to win an argument by attacking the other person's character instead of addressing the actual issue or argument. It's like saying, "You're wrong because you're a bad person," instead of explaining why their idea might be incorrect.
If you call an idea "stupid" but focus on explaining why the idea itself is flawed, it’s not an ad hominem attack. For example:
Not an ad hominem attack: "The plan to build a bridge out of paper is stupid because paper isn’t strong enough to support any weight."
In this case, you're calling the idea "stupid" but you’re explaining why it’s a bad idea based on its merits.
Ad hominem attack: "You think we should build a bridge out of paper? You must be an idiot."
Here, you're attacking the person rather than addressing the reasoning behind their idea.
This endeth the lesson.
Go through a dictionary of your choosing and post the cited definitions of:
Ad hominem
Character
Attribute
Idea
Attack
Stupid
Intelligence
And I'll prove to you by your own cited definitions why you're wrong without going outside of the definitions.
I trust Merriam Webster if you do.
Jesus. Ffs. You can lead a hoe to water but you can't make him think. Block and move on.
So the debate is about what words mean, but when asked to examine what any dictionary defines those words as to understand and agree upon their meanings, you fold immediately?
If the debate was about this, and I offered this to you, then if we follow your anecdote, it was actually me who lead you to the pacific ocean but then you decided to sit on the beach instead of swimming.
I guess you don't believe your argument is predicated on facts in that case since you dropped it the moment you were faced with scrutinizing it against a reputable source.
Goodbye.
