+1

I recognized that video without even clicking though. It’s a good one.

Yeah, the marketing and presentation of that stuff is so fucked up. I’m a (struggling) ADHD person too, so I feel like I dodged a bullet when I watched this.

Was going to say “Tankies gonna gang up on Wikipedia now,” until I remembered: they already dismiss Wikipedia as imperialist propaganda.

…Okay. Technically, that’s true, going by strict semantics.

But the Helium and Ungoogled Chromium are going to lose MV2, soon. I feel like “still supports uBlock Origin” doesn’t sufficiently convey that to Lemmy commenters trying to read the situation. That’s all I meant, though I was perhaps imprecise with my words.

In other words, practically, if a users want to use UBO, they should know these browsers will not support that in the near future even if, strictly speaking, they support it right this second.

I believe this means Brave will lose support too, unless they intend to extensively modify Chromium to maintain compatibility themselves (which would be odd, as Brave doesn’t really need UBO since it has its own adblocking engine?)

True, sometimes. But they don’t have the sheer manpower dedicated to security that Mozilla has, nor the institutional policies that try to mitigate losing a key/account or something like that. Also, technically, vanilla Firefox is first to get the zero-day patches before they filter downstream.

Not that the forks are dangerous or anything, generally.

Well…

With a fork, one is very dependent on the browser dev. Not just on their benevolence, but on their security practices too. And on them pulling in upstream security patches, quickly.

TBH, this is why I do finance stuff on vanilla Firefox. I love browser forks, I really do, but I’m a bit more cautious with them, too.

First, screw Chrome.

BUT. These headlines are clickbait.

UBO has been disabled in Chrome for a long, long time. This is nothing new. Its old news.

Ublock Lite replaced it, and it’s not going away. It’s inferior and problematic and harder on devs, yes, but unfortunately Chrome users didn’t seem notice.

What’s being disabled is a crazy-difficult-to-enable flag that basically zero Chrome users actually used, and that only (a few) downstream Chromium forks use.

Not for long. The patch that removes support is coming to Vivaldi soon.

The updates aren’t just disabling it anymore, they’re stripping the path out entirely, so it would be difficult to maintain support.

This is not true.

The flag that UnGoogled Chromium used to support it is going away, and AFAIK there is no fix. Helium inherited the same patch from UnGoogled Chromium.

They will both lose support. See their relevant GitHub issues.

Brave uses a custom, integrated adblocking engine; it technically doesn’t need UBO.

That’s a significant security risk, unfortunately.

If that happens, I’d suggest a fork with a built in blocker, one that still gets security patches from upstream Firefox.

Okay.

I don’t agree. But let’s say I agree.

…Just don’t use Claude?

Use an LLM without a watermark; there are hundreds to pick from.

In other words, if one is going to try to hide automated writing, I think there should be a bare minimum effort to do so. That includes:

• Reading/checking the text, to see if it makes any sense.

• Actually trying to pass it as human.

90% of slop is brain melting slop because this minimum bar isn’t even met. And all Claude’s watermark would do is catch that bottom of the barrel; it wouldn’t censor anyone.

Also, I would contest this:

Never before has the government had so much power.

I feel that the legitimacy of governments is collapsing and power is going to corporations, in a hurry.

In other words, we got so busy worrying about direct government spying we let a handful of corporations completely take over the information sphere, instead.

This won’t fix the inbreeding issue, anyway. The bias is extremely slight, but random, and orthogonal to Claude’s own “slop patterns” and tendencies. And theres tons of other LLM content that will end up in their dataset outside their control.

Besides, as much as Claude accusess others of it, everyone’s training on everyone else’s output and they know it.

I’m against trying to “censor” LLMs, but yeah. What’s even the ostensible benevolent scenario for stripping invisible watermarking from Claude?

I can’t think of one, playing devil’s advocate.

It’s pretty scummy, indeed.

I know exactly how it works. I read the article, and I knew of it beforehand, hence I explained it to someone else in a comment three days ago:

https://lemmy.world/post/50533770/25234461

I’m sorry to jab back, but you hit a button of mine.

Lemmy commenters keep jabbing me with comments like “Clueless. Read the article and get back to me.”

Like yesterday:

https://lemmy.world/post/50595546/25269317

But I’m aware of how sampling works. I knew all about LLM fingerprinting ~two years ago, and I’ve been tinkering with samplers myself for years. I’ve messed with local LLMs trying to make them “aware” of their own sampling many times, and even hacked out a (unsuccessful) experiment where a tiny LLM picks tokens for a larger one.

I’m not trying to be pretentious, I’m not a researcher or expert or anything, but you shouldn’t assume everyone on Lemmy is clueless.

And back on topic… to be clear, I have tried what you are proposing, and even with local LLMs I have more control over, it doesn’t work. They have extremely poor “awareness” of their own logit spread and tokenization, which is why they perform so poorly on any tasks that depends on that.

You can’t tell them “don’t pick the top word” or “give more options in your logit spread” because that part of the process is completely invisible, from their perspective.

It doesn’t work like that. The LLM has no way to be “aware” of its own sampling and tokenization, and it can’t choose what token the sampler ends up picking.

You can give it a list of “banned words” or preferred words that match up to tokens in the prompts to skew it some, I suppose, but that would be a really long list. And one would need the dictionary as a “key.”

The most annoying thing is… People can use more than one app. You can say “well, if you wanna talk to me, I’ll be on this messenger here.” And thats how you get them through the door.

It’s really shouldn’t be that hard, yet it feels like asking someone to pull their teeth out.

The dev comments say a lot:

https://old.reddit.com/user/paintboth1234

No one helping the project ever said “uBO is living on a secluded isle”. It’s a public community FOSS project, for over a decade, monitored and contributed by every user and volunteer. Every site has been watching uBO for years. It’s not new. And yes, if users do nothing to help, either on helping uBO’s side or leaving the trash sites, and just give snarky comments instead, this will happen.

The message is clear to me; UBO devs are sick of a sick of a sea of users constantly complaining about imperfect Facebook blocking, who won’t contribute anything nor lift a finger to limit/adapt their own usage. They’re sick of slaving away fighting six-figure-salary Facebook devs, whose only job is to counter adblock, where UBO’s only compensation is more pretentious complaints.

It’s not a technical limitation, persay. It kinda a “Why are we doing this to ourselves? If you all want us to support Facebook, fine; we welcome PRs.”

Which is totally fair.

To me, it sounds like UBO could drop other overtly hostile sites, too. As they should.

I’m going against the wind here….

But the real heroes are old smartphones.

My iPhone 4 had 512MB RAM. Yet even hacked and modded and themed, it flew. It was so smooth, always usable, futuristic feeling; it honestly jammed up less than my iPhone 16.

Heck. It jammed up less than my desktop does now, with literally 300X the RAM.

Yeah… that is just not true. I stripped Windows down to the freaking bone, but it still idles hotter and with more RAM than default Cachy KDE.

Like, I give Windows credit where it’s due. It’s still faster for some applications, better for certain things. But lighter, it is not.

First of all, I mean zero offense with any purchase decision. A 5090 is very good.

…But if I were paying that kind of money, I’d probably get a 4090 and a new motherboard/CPU instead. Maybe a used DRR4 threadripper system.

Hybrid (CPU + GPU) inference is where it’s at these days. It opens up a whole world of huge MoE models, whereas on an 5090 you are stuck with Qwen 27B.

Having a fast CPU, with lots of RAM channels, with full PCIe bandwidth is much more important for that than having a 5090, where a 3090 or 4090 will get the job done.

Even if pure speed is your primary concern, you can tune a sparse 120B model (like Laguna) to run almost as fast as Qwen 27B on a 5090, and get at-least-good results.

It’s more finicky and involved, though. For sure.

Running an LLM on a 5090 is a task. Hybrid CPU + GPU inference is a hobby.