It uses OpenAI for translation. Spyware (unless it uses the DDG implementation or something).
How would the DDG implementation be less than a privacy concern? It’s just adding a middle layer. It may only lump queries together in a larger pool of seemingly undistinguishable users. Am I missing anything else?
They made a deal with the AI providers to not use the data for model training and it has some open-source models now too (though idk what providers do they use).
Spyware because of a feature you don’t even need to use? Geez.
It violates privacy and sometimes copyright of the user whose content you’re trying to translate. And you can just press it accidentally.
Yes.
“Sure this option installs malware on your machine, but you don’t need to use it. Geez”
Interesting idea, but there’s already some really good Fediverse clients (such as Fedilab). Adding AI translation is unique, but it rubs me the wrong way that it would be potentially submitting people’s toots and comments to a LLM without their consent.
Would you feel the same way if it was being sent through a “non AI” translation server?
Yes, because the core problem is that taking somebody else’s entire comment and putting it into a service neither I nor the dev controls is to violate the original author’s consent. The original author has no way to provide consent. Likewise, if I used a live translation service to communicate with somebody in real time, I would want to somehow first verify they were okay with me using it.
“If a product is free that should otherwise cost money, you’re the product.”
One could argue simply posting something online is consent, especially when in a publicly accessible location.
If you post something on Twitter, and someone else screenshots and posts it elsewhere, are they “violating consent” what if that person was Donald Trump or some other ghoul saying some crazy shit. Would you have the same reservations?
This seems like an extreme take to me on what communication and consent mean on the internet.
One could argue simply posting something online is consent, especially when in a publicly accessible location.
That’s exactly the argument of the companies slurping up online data. The problem is that not explicitly revoking consent ≠ granting consent. It’s the same argument employed by rapists. “They didn’t say no…” and obviously, we recognize that extreme example as fallacious reasoning (specifically Denying the Antecedent).
- Let C be “denial of consent.”
- Let L be “use by LLMs.”
- C => !L ✅
- !C => L ❌
If I post something online, I’m not defacto granting that I want a machine or a corporation using those words for their gain, and that likewise applies to anyone who does not expressly grant consent to use their online interactions for someone else’s profit.
Are we really comparing commenting online to rape now? That’s a huge leap
These are public sites that are used for free I don’t think there’s really any expectation of privacy, additional translation software is far from a nefarious thing.
I love that it’s AGPL licensed!
Also, the associated website could use some attention when viewed with Firefox on Android.
…use of AI tools to…
yeah, no thx.
