Your post is really straining.
You don’t get several points regarding monitoring. An evolving browser hast to be monitored for these anti features because new ones could be added at any time and thus has to be disabled immediately.
‘Claim’ to help is correct. While AI can have benefits, is is advertised as always helpful and has to be integrated into a browser. And that’s two different points with the latter one being wrong. The opposite will be the case. People will lose their ability to think, analyze and decide by themselfes.
they’re building AI so deeply into Firefox that an opt-out mechanism becomes necessary in the first place
That’s such terrible logic. If something has an opt-out, it has to be “so deeply” built into it?
If you don’t get it, I can’t help you.
Article says: A causes B.
You argue: B causes A?
Your following examples are pointless unfitting as well.
Maybe you should take a deep breath and consider a factual view instead of pseudo arguments.
Well, the opt-out argument really doesn’t make any sense. The fact there’s an opt-out tells me nothing about how deeply a feature is embedded, if anything, it tells me the exact opposite of what the article argues: the only reason we can disable it is because it’s not deeply integrated. If it was, there most likely wouldn’t be an opt-out.
Your post is really straining.
You don’t get several points regarding monitoring. An evolving browser hast to be monitored for these anti features because new ones could be added at any time and thus has to be disabled immediately.
‘Claim’ to help is correct. While AI can have benefits, is is advertised as always helpful and has to be integrated into a browser. And that’s two different points with the latter one being wrong. The opposite will be the case. People will lose their ability to think, analyze and decide by themselfes.
If you don’t get it, I can’t help you.
Article says: A causes B.
You argue: B causes A?
Your following examples are pointless unfitting as well.
Maybe you should take a deep breath and consider a factual view instead of pseudo arguments.
Yes, I see my error now. Thank you.
Well, the opt-out argument really doesn’t make any sense. The fact there’s an opt-out tells me nothing about how deeply a feature is embedded, if anything, it tells me the exact opposite of what the article argues: the only reason we can disable it is because it’s not deeply integrated. If it was, there most likely wouldn’t be an opt-out.