“It’s safe to say that the people who volunteered to “shape” the initiative want it dead and buried. Of the 52 responses at the time of writing, all rejected the idea and asked Mozilla to stop shoving AI features into Firefox.”
“It’s safe to say that the people who volunteered to “shape” the initiative want it dead and buried. Of the 52 responses at the time of writing, all rejected the idea and asked Mozilla to stop shoving AI features into Firefox.”
Is it actually both good and efficient for that crap, though? Or is it just capable of doing it?
Is it efficient at simulating protein folding, or does it constantly hallucinate impossible bullshit that has to be filtered out, burning a mountain and a lake for what a super computer circa 2010 would have just crunched through?
Does the speech to text actually work efficiently? On a variety of accents and voices? Compared to the same resources without the bullshit machine?
I feel like i need to ask all these questions because there are so many cultists out there contriving places to put this shit. I’m not opposed to a huge chunky ‘nuclear option’ for computing existing, I just think we need to actually think before we burn the kinds of resources this shit takes on something my phone could have done in 2017.
All of the AI uses I’ve listed have been around for almost a decade or more and are the only computational solutions to those problems. If you’ve ever used speech to text that wasn’t a speak-n-spell you were using a very basic AI model. If you ever scanned a document and had the text be recognized, that’s an AI model.
The catch here is I’m not talking about chatgpt or anything trying be very “general”. These are all highly specialized ai models that serve a very specific function.
Okay so not this trash that everyone’s going all-in on right now and building extra coal plants to power.