ArchRecord

joined 1 year ago
[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee -1 points 53 minutes ago

You're not including the full relevant text. For context, let me just put the full clause here:

You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

Notice the "including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice" part, which means that part just clarifies their existing ability to, for instance, collect telemetry to understand how people are using the browser, and what features are used most.

Then going forward, "as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet." This would be any feature that relies on a Mozilla product to provide you with the ability to interact with any content on the internet. Think their Relay VPN product, any default DNS servers they apply, etc.

However, the key part was this:

you hereby grant us a [...] license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.

This clause effectively restricts any use of the data, to that which you explicitly indicate with your use, specifically only in the context of navigating, experiencing, and interacting with online content.

In other words, the rights you grant are only granted:

  1. When necessary...
  2. ...to make the browser function...
  3. ...and specifically solely for the purpose of passing on that data to let you interact with online content, only as you personally indicate you want that data used.

This clause does not state that Mozilla gets a license to use your data whenever, for any purpose, it states they get a license to use it only when necessary, to make the browser function, specifically only as you choose to use that data when browsing. These are completely different things.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Fair enough, I get the caution honestly. Nobody wants Firefox to enshittify like everything else.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia

I'm not. Apologies if I was unclear, but I was specifically referencing the fact that you were saying AI was going to accelerate to the point that it replaces human labor, and I was simply stating that I would prefer a world in which human labor is not required for humans to survive, and we can simply pursue other passions, if such a world where to exist, as a result of what you claim is happening with AI. You claimed AI will get so good it replaces all the jobs. Cool, I would enjoy that, because I don't believe that jobs are what gives human lives meaning, and thus am fine if people are free to do other things with their lives.

Or perhaps it’s because you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.

The automation of labor is not even remotely comparable to the creation of a technology who's explicit, sole purpose is to cause the largest amount of destruction possible.

Could there hypothetically be an AI model far in the future, once we secure enough computing power, and develop the right architecture, that technically meets the definition of AGI, (however subjective it may be) that then decides to do something to harm humans? I suppose, but that's simply not looking to be likely in any way, (and I'd love if you could actually show any data/evidence proving otherwise instead of saying "it just is" when claiming it's more dangerous) and anyone claiming we're getting close (e.g. Sam Altman) just simply has a vested financial interest in saying that AI development is moving quicker and at a higher scale than it actually is.

Regardless, it’s frustrating to watch you spin this web of sophistry instead of simply acknowledging that you were mistaken.

It’s not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.

It's called having a disagreement and refuting your points. Just because someone doesn't instantly agree with you doesn't mean that I'm automatically mistaken. You're not the sole arbiter of truth. Judging from how you, three times now, have assumed that I must be secretly suppressing the fact that AI is actually going to do more damage than nuclear bombs, just because I disagree with you, it's clear that you are the one making post-hoc justifications here.

You are automatically assuming that because I disagree, I actually don't disagree, and must secretly believe the same thing as you, but am just covering it up. Do not approach arguments from the assumption that the other person involved is just feigning disagreement, or you will never be capable of even considering a view other than the one you currently hold.

I sincerely hope that you did not utilize AI to assist in writing that wall of text.

The fact you'd even consider me possibly using AI to write a comment is ridiculous. Why would I do that? What would I gain? I'm here to articulate my views, not my views but only kind of, without any of my personal context, run through a statistical probability machine.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 4 points 12 hours ago

"It's too expensive"

"It's actually fairly priced for the performance it provides"

"You people must be paid to shill garbage"

???

Ah yes, shilling garbage, also known as: explaining that the price to performance ratio is just better, actually.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 0 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

If nukes didn’t exist, there would potentially be more wars, and thus more death.

Nukes enable larger amounts of death. They increase the possible death, while also increasing the incentive to do a war, to prevent that death. In a world with no nukes, the threat and preventative force of less deadly weapons would simply match each other, just as they currently do with nukes, and have the same effect on disincentivizing war.

We have already automated essentially everything else, and yet people work more than ever.

Oh no we have not. See:

  • Every single service job that relies on human experience/interaction (robotic replacements are still only ever used as gimmicks that attract customers for that fact, but not as a continual experience in broader society, precisely because we value human connection)
  • Any work environment with arbitrary non-planned variables too far outside the scope of a robot's capabilities
  • Most creative works related jobs (AI generated works are often shunned by the masses because they feel inhuman and more sterile than human made works, at least on average)

Not to mention that when we automate something, and a job goes away because of that, that doesn't mean there's no new work that gets created as a result. Sure, when a machine replaces a human worker in a factory, that job goes away, but then who repairs and maintains the machine, checks that it's doing what's required of it, etc? Thus, more jobs shift to management style roles.

Your defensiveness speaks volumes.

You're defensive over believing AI will actually make humans obsolete, that must mean you're actually unable to stomach the reality that you'll have to keep working the rest of your life. Your defensiveness speaks volumes. /s

Seriously, I welcome automation and the reduction in the amount of labor human beings have to engage in so that people are free to engage in their own interests outside of producing material goods for society. A future where work is entirely optional because we've simply eliminated the need to work to survive is great to me.

An ever more powerful nucleus of mechanization that has resulted in the most devastating wars and the most widespread suffering in all of human history. Genocides, chattel slavery, famine, biochemical and nuclear weapons; mass extinction and the imminent destruction of the very planet on which we live.

Ah yes, the printing press, car, and computer, the cause of all genocides. /s

Seriously man, do you not understand that people will just do bad things regardless of if a given job/task is automated?

By the way, your logic literally has no end here. The printing press, car, etc, is just an arbitrary starting point. There's nothing about these inventions that's inherently the starting point for any other consequences. This argument quite literally goes all the way back to the development of fire.

Fire brought the ability to burn people to death. Guess we should never have used fire for anything because it could possibly lead to something bad on a broader societal scale, maybe, in some minute way, that in no way outweighs the benefits!

Sweet summer child. Making human work obsolete makes human beings obsolete. I envy your naivety.

Were you ever a kid? Y'know, the people across nearly every society on this planet that don't get jobs for years, and have little to no responsibilities, yet are provided for entirely outside of their own will and work ethic? Yet I have a sneaking suspicion you don't believe that children are obsolete because they don't do work.

The assumption that work is what gives humans their value is a complete and utter myth that only serves capitalists who want to convince you that it's good to spend most of your time doing labor, actually.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

But nuclear weapons have only been used twice in 80 years for military purposes. They have arguably prevented more deaths than they have caused.

Nukes only "prevent" deaths by saying they'll cause drastically large numbers of deaths otherwise. If the nukes didn't exist, there wouldn't then be the threat of death from the nukes, which is being prevented by more people having the nukes.

If anything, your reaction is a defense mechanism because you can’t bear to stomach the potential consequences of AI.

"AI" is just more modern machine learning techniques that we've had for decades. Most implementations of it today are things that nobody actually wants, producing worse quality outputs than that of a human. Maybe it will automate some jobs, sure, that can happen. Just like how tons of automation historically has just pushed people from direct labor to management of machine labor.

Heck, if "AI" automated most of the work people did and put us out of a job, that would just accelerate our progress towards pushing for UBI/or an era of superabundance, which I'd welcome with open arms. It's a lot easier to convince people that centralized ownership of wealth and resources makes no sense if goods can be produced automatically by machines for free.

But sure, seeing matrix multiplication causing statistically probable sentences to be formed really has me unable to stomach the potential consequences. /s

One could have easily reacted the same way to the invention of the printing press, or the automobile, or the analog computer. They all wasted a lot of energy for limited benefit, at first. But if the technology develops enough, it can destroy everything that we hold dear.

And what did the printing press, automobile, and analog computer bring?

A rapid advancement in the spread of information and local news, faster individualized transport that later contributed to additional developments to rail and bus transit solutions, and software solutions that can massively reduce workloads while accelerating human progress.

And all of those things either raised the standard of living without causing equivalent harm from job loss, or actively created substantially more jobs.

Human beings engineering their own obsolescence while cavalierly disregarding the potential consequences. A tale as old as time

Make human work obsolete so we can do what we care about and hang out with people we like instead of spending our days doing labor to produce goods we rely on? Sign me up.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I truly don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

Mozilla defines telemetry as "data collection." Any collection of data by Mozilla is considered telemetry, as is described by the docs page that is cited on the Telemetry Collection & Deletion page.

If you deselect the Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla option, this disables all telemetry, or in other words, all data collection by Mozilla.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 8 points 19 hours ago (7 children)

AI is quite possibly a more catastrophic technological development than nuclear weapons.

I wouldn't go that far. A technology that wastes a lot of energy and creates a lot of bad quality content isn't the same as a bomb that directly kills millions.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 points 20 hours ago

I understand that, but I've seen that language commonly used in nearly identical clauses before, and as far as I'm aware, the courts seem to interpret that as "to do the thing that's required, or to make it more possible than otherwise," rather than "anything they deem to be 'helpful'"

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 20 points 20 hours ago (9 children)

It's two things:

  1. Sidebar you can open from the hamburger menu that is basically just a tiny chat UI
  2. Right click to paste the selected text into the sidebar

If you don't want it, they don't seem to be pushing it any further than that. Just don't click the option in the menus and you'll be fine. (I believe you can also fully disable the option from appearing in settings too)

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 18 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

Look at the links in my comment, and you'll see that all of the categories of telemetry data there can be opted out of with that single switch.

JFC please read the actual documents instead of going "nothing about opting out" when it's literally right there.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 27 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

So phone-home telemetry that you can’t opt out of.

You can opt out of it. You've always been able to opt out of Mozilla's telemetry. Not to mention that if you actually read the Privacy Notice, there's an entire section detailing every single piece of telemetry that Mozilla collects, and if you read the section very clearly titled "To provide AI chatbots," you'll see what's collected:

  • Technical data
  • Location
  • Settings data
  • Unique identifiers
  • Interaction data

The consent required for the collection to even start:

Our lawful basis

Consent, when you choose to enable an AI Chatbot.

And links that lead to the page explaining how to turn off telemetry even if you're using the in-beta AI features.

This page > FAQ > Telemetry Collection & Deletion page

 

Amazon gives non-Prime members free shipping at $35 or more of eligible items. Instead of simply letting users get the product with free shipping, they've added a discount that prices it exactly one cent below the $35 limit, while only subsidizing the price with $3.38, which is about half of what they'll then charge you for shipping.

 

HRC Article:

WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.

Biden's press release:

No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.

 

This site is less useful, more... strange.

Anything you never wanted to know about bread bag clips can be found on HORG.

 

Sharing because I found this very interesting.

The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective has a DIY design for a home lab you can set up to reproduce expensive medication for dirt cheap, producing medication like that used to cure Hepatitis C, along with software they developed that can be used to create chemical compounds out of common household materials.

 

I'm someone who believes landlording (and investing in property outside of just the one you live in) is immoral, because it makes it harder for other people to afford a home, and takes what should be a human right, and turns it into an investment.

At the same time, It's highly unlikely that I'll ever be able to own a home without investing my money.

And just investing in stocks means I won't have a diversified portfolio that could resist a financial crash as much as real estate can.

If I were to invest fractionally in real estate, say, through REITs, would it not be as immoral as landlording if I were to later sell all my shares of the REIT in order to buy my own home?

I personally think investing in general is usually immoral to some degree, since it relies on the exploitation of other's labour, but at the same time, it feels more like I'm buying back my own lost labour value, rather than solely exploiting others.

I'm curious how any of you might see this as it applies to real estate, so feel free to discuss :)

view more: next ›