3 ms·

> "AI browsers" and ai integrated browsing is becoming more and more the norm Not really, outside influencers looking to capture the next hot thing (like Mozil

by isodev 11mo ago

> "AI browsers" and ai integrated browsing is becoming more and more the norm Not really, outside influencers looking to capture the next hot thing (like Mozilla) and tech-bros, there is no living soul on this planet that wants or is trying to normalise AI browsers.

jajuuka 11mo ago
Another example of "nobody I know" and not nobody.
- isodev 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jajuuka 11mo ago
    I'm not a techbro and I want this. I know other people who aren't techbros who want it as well. So what makes your anecdotal evidence any stronger than mine? Maybe you and the author shouldn't be speaking for everyone.
  - orbital-decay 11mo ago
    >It also echoes sentiments expressed in any other medium or social you check. That tells more about your socials than anything else. I personally know plenty of non-technical folks using ChatGPT (because it's the only buzzword they know) to augment their browsing in an awkward manner. They want utility, they don't give a damn about anyone's sentiments.
orbital-decay 11mo ago
That's a ridiculous hyperbole. Translation and search alone are examples of wildly successful applications of generative AI that a lot of people actually want because it makes the experience qualitatively better. This is pretty evident if you look at normal people shifting to ChatGPT and other AI-powered search from the engines like Google. Recent AI mode in Google is a desperate attempt to stay relevant.
- isodev 11mo ago
  No, they’re examples of misuse of LLMs - “sometimes correct” is not a replacement for a search engine or a translator. Remember, Google search used to actually find you things before they shifted to replacing results with “somewhat random but reads plausible” AI summaries.
  - orbital-decay 11mo ago
    Are we even living in the same universe?? In mine, Claude and Gemini Pro outperform classic machine translators by orders of magnitude, that's not an exaggeration. I can finally rely on correct machine translation when reading articles in languages I don't speak and when talking to people in their native language. They still miss some nuance in the informal talk, but I can be reasonably sure it adapts the cultural context pretty well, and tolerate the rest. >replacing results with “somewhat random but reads plausible” AI summaries I'm talking about actual deep (re)search that cites the sources, not simple summaries. For example I'm considering a KTM 890 Adventure R as my next motorcycle but the reliability and TCO are worrying. I've prompted and launched an agent to recursively scan YouTube travel videos, or rather the transcriptions, to look for actual issues with this bike, without all that KTM marketing bullshit and paid reviews, and provide me with timecodes. And it did, finding a ton of extremely non-obvious non-English channels in the process (Russian, Afrikaans, Spanish etc), scanning dozens of hours of videos, and providing timecodes for me to verify. That saved me insane amount of time. Normal people actually pay money for this, I'm pretty surprised to see this in the wild but it's true. Reducing this to "techbros and influencers" is pure wishful thinking.
    - nativeit 11mo ago
      Maybe talk to the recently resigned Japanese translation team leader about how good AI translations are.
      - orbital-decay 11mo ago
        They are miles better than the ordinary machine translators. That's all that matters, because I can't afford a personal human translator to browse the web. Human translation is obviously better, but not by much, especially on the web. I know because I'm testing LLMs for pretty complex translations all the time, in languages I understand well, and two persons occasionally communicate with me in my native language using an LLM. It's accurate enough to not have any troubles, especially if you don't prompt it naively and use a strong multilanguage model. It's not the same as slop generation, as the input is from a human. That guy reacted to them ignoring him and overwriting his hard work with a worse version, which is terrible but not related to the point I'm making.
notepad0x90 11mo ago
I myself can see using that some day. I was dismissive of AI-assisted search results, now I'm back to using google search most of the time over duckduckgo, because of quality. I don't want to be forced to abandon firefox down the road. Every feature they add,from pocket,vpns, to this, is optional. Just don't use it. Let firefox get more marketshare. It's the only Google alternative.

by isodev 11mo ago

jajuuka 11mo ago

Another example of "nobody I know" and not nobody.

isodev 11mo ago
[flagged]
- jajuuka 11mo ago
  I'm not a techbro and I want this. I know other people who aren't techbros who want it as well. So what makes your anecdotal evidence any stronger than mine? Maybe you and the author shouldn't be speaking for everyone.
- orbital-decay 11mo ago
  >It also echoes sentiments expressed in any other medium or social you check. That tells more about your socials than anything else. I personally know plenty of non-technical folks using ChatGPT (because it's the only buzzword they know) to augment their browsing in an awkward manner. They want utility, they don't give a damn about anyone's sentiments.

orbital-decay 11mo ago

That's a ridiculous hyperbole. Translation and search alone are examples of wildly successful applications of generative AI that a lot of people actually want because it makes the experience qualitatively better. This is pretty evident if you look at normal people shifting to ChatGPT and other AI-powered search from the engines like Google. Recent AI mode in Google is a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

isodev 11mo ago
No, they’re examples of misuse of LLMs - “sometimes correct” is not a replacement for a search engine or a translator. Remember, Google search used to actually find you things before they shifted to replacing results with “somewhat random but reads plausible” AI summaries.
- orbital-decay 11mo ago
  Are we even living in the same universe?? In mine, Claude and Gemini Pro outperform classic machine translators by orders of magnitude, that's not an exaggeration. I can finally rely on correct machine translation when reading articles in languages I don't speak and when talking to people in their native language. They still miss some nuance in the informal talk, but I can be reasonably sure it adapts the cultural context pretty well, and tolerate the rest. >replacing results with “somewhat random but reads plausible” AI summaries I'm talking about actual deep (re)search that cites the sources, not simple summaries. For example I'm considering a KTM 890 Adventure R as my next motorcycle but the reliability and TCO are worrying. I've prompted and launched an agent to recursively scan YouTube travel videos, or rather the transcriptions, to look for actual issues with this bike, without all that KTM marketing bullshit and paid reviews, and provide me with timecodes. And it did, finding a ton of extremely non-obvious non-English channels in the process (Russian, Afrikaans, Spanish etc), scanning dozens of hours of videos, and providing timecodes for me to verify. That saved me insane amount of time. Normal people actually pay money for this, I'm pretty surprised to see this in the wild but it's true. Reducing this to "techbros and influencers" is pure wishful thinking.
  - nativeit 11mo ago
    Maybe talk to the recently resigned Japanese translation team leader about how good AI translations are.
    - orbital-decay 11mo ago
      They are miles better than the ordinary machine translators. That's all that matters, because I can't afford a personal human translator to browse the web. Human translation is obviously better, but not by much, especially on the web. I know because I'm testing LLMs for pretty complex translations all the time, in languages I understand well, and two persons occasionally communicate with me in my native language using an LLM. It's accurate enough to not have any troubles, especially if you don't prompt it naively and use a strong multilanguage model. It's not the same as slop generation, as the input is from a human. That guy reacted to them ignoring him and overwriting his hard work with a worse version, which is terrible but not related to the point I'm making.

notepad0x90 11mo ago

I myself can see using that some day. I was dismissive of AI-assisted search results, now I'm back to using google search most of the time over duckduckgo, because of quality. I don't want to be forced to abandon firefox down the road. Every feature they add,from pocket,vpns, to this, is optional. Just don't use it. Let firefox get more marketshare. It's the only Google alternative.