As much as I love Mozilla, I know they're going to censor it (sorry, the word is "alignment" now) the hell out of it to fit their perceived values. Luckily if it's open source then people will be able to train uncensored models
What in the world would an "uncensored" model even imply? And give me a break, private platforms choosing to not platform something/someone isn't "censorship", you don't have a right to another's platform. Mozilla has always been a principled organization and they have never pretended to be apathetic fence-sitters.
Anything that prevents it from my answering my query. If I ask it how to make me a bomb, I don't want it to be censored. It's gathering this from public data they don't own after all. I agree with Mozilla's principles, but also LLMs are tools and should be treated as such.
If you ask how to build a bomb and it tells you, wouldn't Mozilla get in trouble?
Do gun manufacturers get in trouble when someone shoots somebody?
Do car manufacturers get in trouble when someone runs somebody over?
Do search engines get in trouble if they accidentally link to harmful sites?
What about social media sites getting in trouble for users uploading illegal content?
Mozilla doesn't need to host an uncensored model, but their open source AI should be able to be trained to uncensored. So I'm not asking them to host this themselves, which is an important distinction I should have made.
Which uncensored LLMs exist already, so any argument about the damage they can cause is already possible.
I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. I really do. I am going to watch this with a critical eye, however.
Couldn't give a fuck, there's already far too much bad blood regarding any form of AI for me.
It's been shoved in my face, phone and computer for some time now. The best AI is one that doesn't exist. AGI can suck my left nut too, don't fuckin care.
Give me livable wages or give me death, I care not for anything else at this point.
Edit: I care far more about this for privacy reasons than the benefits provided via the tech.
The fact these models reached "production ready" status so quickly is beyond concerning, I suspect the companies are hoping to harvest as much usable data as possible before being regulated into (best case) oblivion. It really no longer seems that I can learn my way out of this, as I've been doing since the beginning, as the technology is advancing too quickly for users, let alone regulators to keep it in check.
Please just put the 30 million into improving the browser. Not all this dumb stuff
Offline translation feature visible in Firefox 108 and later is AI powered. And works good enough for now.
Coming from a company the preaches about privacy and rates privacy respecting businesses, while collecting telemetry and accepting 500M/ year to from google to promote their search engine... I'll take this as the puff up piece that is is.
- The very little, basic telemetry Firefox collects can be easily disabled[1].
- What alternative do you suggest to Mozilla? Reject the $500M and blowup everything they've worked so hard for decades to build? I feel like users having to click, at most, a whole 5 times to change their search engine (if they want) isn't that big of a sacrifice to have a major privacy-oriented, non-profit player in the tech sphere.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid ↩︎
Its more so the principle. Many people that download Firefox are doing so to escape google, and if they are not born as cyber security experts they may download Firefox and continue with no real improvement to their privacy.
Secondly, the main thing you should look for is where a company gets its funding. If Mozilla gets almost 100% of its funding through google.. How much do you really expect them to push back against the data collection of their userbase?
I rank Mozilla with the likes of ExpressVPN, NordVPN, etc. They preach privacy and security against surveillance.. But its just theatre to make money in specific demographics.
It is extremely simple and easy to change your search engine and disable telemetry in Firefox. I would agree if Mozilla showed any favoritism towards Google, but they don't. Maintaining and developing an entirely independent browser is not cheap.
I really hope you're not about to suggest Brave as an alternative when 100% of their funds come from a dying crypto scam, is for-profit, and is owned by a far-right, anti-gay reactionary. Not to mention that Brave's browser is entirely reliant on Chromium code from Google.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Many people that download Firefox are doing so to escape google, and if they are not born as cyber security experts they may download Firefox and continue with no real improvement to their privacy.
Uh, if they're already downloading an entire browser for the purpose of escaping google, they can also do the extremely minimal research required to learn how to actually get decent privacy from doing so. In fact, whoever told them about Firefox being better in this regard probably already explained this stuff to them
I personally think is disingenuous to recommend something to casual users who are used to solving problems with money.
But the issue here is it is usually Firefox advertising themselves to customers so that they can have a subset of those customers actually use google.
They market themselves as a "download and be private" which interests the casual user who hears about how invasive Facebook and google is online and is looking for a nontechnical fix. This small subset of users on Firefox are what funds Mozilla to use googles money to fund their hobbies.
Yes, people should educate themselves, but I personally think it's unethical for Mozilla to fund for-profit businesses that they control by exploiting this small, uninformed subset of their userbase and it makes it hard for me to trust them based on how they justify their means to an end.
And no, fuck brave, I'm for educating people on how the internet works and to educate themselves if they want privacy or security instead of trusting massive corporations.
Mozilla's Firefox is essentially the only competitor to Google's Chrome. So to say that Mozilla is pro-google is kind of weird. Almost every other browser uses Chrome's engine, and thus is enforcing Google's view of the internet. Firefox and Safari are the only significant holdouts. (And Safari is obviously backed by one of the largest companies in the world, with its own reasons.)
Yea, it does seem weird.. But money doesn't lie. Its very easy to search online how Mozilla has enough money to lay for all their weird projects.
They even cost cut their nonprofit products like Firefox and Thunderbird so they have more money to burn on other hobbies.
They're like a giant corporate MLM where users are encouraged to sell "privacy" to their friends and the profits syphon up to Mozilla where they cash out to google.
Isn't AI impossible to meaningfully open source because of how learning models work?
No? The code for the model can be open-source - and that's pretty valuable. The training data can be made openly available too - and that's perhaps even more valuable. And the post-training weights for the model can be made open too.
Each of those things is very meaningful and useful. If those things are open, then the AI can be used and adjusted for different contexts. It can be run offline; it can be retrained or tweaked. It can be embedded into other software. etc. It is definitely meaningful to open source that stuff.
