My music library is hosted on my server, automatically synced locally on fixed devices and played from local files most of the time. Streaming services combine the advantage of sometimes disappearing, altering, removing content with the other advantage of needing an active internet connection at all time. That's neither a good thing nor an efficient thing when the alternative is cheap and works all the time from everywhere.
Of course, I know this is not the most common use case; most people usually don't care about any of this (and usually complain when something break). But it exists.
You're conveniently missing the point that there is an actually labeledtelemarketing partner that is opt-out. That's not user habit collection. You're also missing that "random future studies" should not be auto-enabled by default either. Finally, the topic of this particular post is about categorizing search queries, which as far as they describe it isn't something your browser should care about.
The only thing that may be legitimate is, as you say, actual UX and feature usage. But for that to be done properly, you have to ask and make it opt-in, as with any data collection scheme. It's actually a requirement in some places.
The point is, people give shit to chrome because "evil google collects your habits data and monetize them", while people like you are a-ok with Firefox openly sending data to a third-party marketing partner on opt-out conditions and, as demonstrated by today's post, adding more collection that have absolutely nothing to do with the behavior of the browser and all to do with user habits.
There's no "initial button". Installing Firefox on mobile you'll have technical data collection, marketing (with a third party) data collection, and "random studies" enabled without a clue. As someone that is very wary of this, I can assure you that at no point I was asked anything about sending data to "Adjust" (marketing partner), Mozilla, or allowing random, unknown at the time, studies.
A few months ago, I had trouble with Firefox on Android, so I started looking again in the settings; something you really rarely do in a browser. Finding a few things like data collection, usage data, marketing data, and "occasional studies" being all enabled by default sure reminded me that Mozilla isn't what it used to be.
Hyperloop? The failed project he pushed just to make sure other possible projects that would just work would not be done? Yeah, he was better back then… not.
Some people decided that they needed a buzzword for something that have absolutely nothing to do with the web, and they decided to use Web3.
Anything "web3" you can think of is a regular webservice, that have no technological difference with "web2" (whatever this was), and may or may not behind the scene communicate with some form of blockchain (which may or may not be a real one too).
That's web3. And note that I didn't even bother to go check what happens on the blockchain side, that is already so removed from the web it's insulting people calls this web3.
You're missing the point of a safety feature. The car shouldn't, by itself, close the lid if something's in the way. It should allow the user to push it down, or disable it temporarily, to do so.
The point of a safety feature in any system is to prevent unexpected situation from having unexpected consequences, not to be a magic solution that accommodate for brainless people. In one direction, you can make the judgement call and force the thing down, in the other direction you lose a finger.
Yes, there is. And yes, it would be huge. I know a lot of people that are staying away from all this as long as the privacy issues are not resolved (there are other issues, but at this point, the cat is out of the bag).
But running large models locally requires a ton of resource. It may become a reality in the future, but in the meantime allowing more, smaller provider to provide a service (and a self-hosted option, for corporation/enthusiasts) is way better in term of resources usage. And it's already a thing; what needs work now is improving UI and integrations.
In fact, very far from the "impressive" world of generated text and pictures, using LLM and integrations (or whatever it is called) to create a sort of documentation index that you can query with natural language is a very interesting tool that can be useful for a lot of people, both individual and in corporate environment. And some projects are already looking that way.
I'm not holding my breath for portable, good, customized large models (if only for the economics of energy consumption) but moving away from "everything goes to a third party service provider" is a great goal.
In addition to being able to run the exact same thing on that phone you already have, too.
Their device does not have any specific hardware for their usage. Even if Google and Apple don't bring any improvement to their own solution, soon enough someone is bound to just provide an "assistant AI app" with a subscription, proxying openai requests and using the touchscreen, camera, micro and speaker that are already there instead of making you buy a new set of those.
Your first mistake was thinking the company training their models care. They're actively lobbying for the right to say "fuck copyright when it benefits us!".
Your second mistake is assuming training LLM blindly put everything in. There's human filters, then there's automated filters, then there's the LLM itself that blur things out. I can't tell about the last one, but the first two will easily strip such easy noise, the same way search engines very quickly became immune to random keyword spam two decades ago.
Note that I didn't even care to see if it was useful in any way to add these little extra blurb, legally speaking. I doubt it would help, though. Service ToS and other regulatory body have probably more weight than that.