![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
I still don’t see how that makes Firefox difficult.
The transition might be difficult, but I rarely see casual people use the options you describe.
It’s as easy as opening the shortcut and start browsing, I see no difference with Chrome there
I still don’t see how that makes Firefox difficult.
The transition might be difficult, but I rarely see casual people use the options you describe.
It’s as easy as opening the shortcut and start browsing, I see no difference with Chrome there
Why would Firefox be difficult to use?
Pretty much everyone here agrees that it’s a shitty concept. Doesn’t solve anything and it’s a privacy nightmare.
No, you have it the other way around. It means copyright owners can share “corrupted” versions of their works and the AI can still use it. Possible AI leaks won’t return the original work, since it was never used.
Of course I think this is only one aspect of why artists wouldn’t share their works, but it’s not the point the paper is trying to make. They’re just giving an aspect of how it could be useful.
Qwant uses their own index, but supplements it with Bing if they don’t have enough info (or for images).
It’s not what the paper is about at all, seems this is just shit journalism again.
All the paper says about copyright is that this method is more secure because AI can sometimes spit out training examples.
Kagi is great, but I just can’t miss $5 a month for it.
I’m using Qwant now and it’s pretty good.
Not videogames, but the idea that a car should also be a video game console sounds very childish.
This is a newer function though, wasn’t always available
The implant is already malfunctioning after a few months. Makes you wonder how many more of these threads will retract over the next following months.
It was Interpol that made the request on behalf of the Spanish police according to the article.
If the product was as they marketed and sold it, it shouldn’t be able to run on Android.
Clearly they lied to their customers, I’d be pissed.
Long long man has a son??
What you’re giving as examples are legitimate uses for the data.
If I write and sell a new book that’s just Harry Potter with names and terms switched around, I’ll definitely get in trouble.
The problem is that the data CAN be used for stuff that violates copyright. And because of the nature of AI, it’s not even always clear to the user.
AI can basically throw out a Harry Potter clone without you knowing because it’s trained on that data, and that’s a huge problem.
Or ollama.ai
I wonder if it’s the diversification within the Chromium user space.
There are a ton of browsers based on Chromium each with their own little gimmick.
On the other side there’s basically just Firefox.
From a casual point of view, I don’t think there’s much reason to go for Firefox. It doesn’t really stand out from that point of view.
I think many didn’t read the article. The only way to get a Funimation digital copy was by using a code that came with the physical copy.
Even if they’re taking away the digital copy, you still have the physical one.
They only took the digital copy though. Shitty move, but you still have a copy.
Corporations would be delighted to analyze all this footage.
If I copy McDonald’s site one by one for my own restaurant and just change the name, you can expect to be sued.
And yet, their site is available publicly?