I tend to agree with Jef Spaleta, LLMs and ML tech/services are not going anywhere and they will continue to have a bigger impact on our lives.

You can’t just reject the notion of ML products/services, they clearly have significant utility (not just LLMs, I do a lot of video ML upscalling as a hobby and you’de be surprised with the result you can get for DVD or even VHS quality source material).

The ethical dilemmas inherent to AI tech are not technical in nature. The root cause is tied to the current oligarchic regime and the inability of the largest and most powerful democratic-leaning society to deal with corruption.

You’re again being deceptive and even contradicting yourself. I suspect the reason for this you don’t actually know whether:

This is more secure than an extension

You just said that because you thought it was something easy to pitch.

Even the Waterfox team don’t use the “improved security” argument in their write-up on integrating Brave’s content blocking code.

And your “It is more safe to trust one group than two groups.” statement doesn’t even add up in terms of a count of groups in involved under different scenarios. At any rate, this is a clear tautology and not a real argument.

It’s not a matter of the size of the codebase; this is a reputational thing.

And if it’s such a tiny fraction, why not write it themselves?

We are not discussing Mozilla, you’re just trying change the topic when you get called out. The points I made have nothing to do with Mozilla, they can be worse than the LRA or be literal representatives of the devine in earth, my point stands.

And how is a in-built blocker inherently more secure than an extension? If it’s clear, it should be easy to answer in one sentence.

By relying on Brave?

That doesn’t make sense.

You can that say it makes them less reliant on the Firefox extension engine, you can say that it is faster. Those are fair points.

But you’re not hedging your bets by relying on Brave, a gang that secretly engaged in link hijacking and referral re-writing.

I am genuinely curious, how is an in-built content blocker inherently more secure than an extension? Assuming you trust both the browser developer and the extension developer.

I can see it being faster and better integrated, but how is it more secure?