I never understand these critiques. If something is useful and you’re selling it, does that mean any technical document describing its usefulness becomes marketing?
I guess maybe, but then do those documents lose value as technical documents? Not necessarily at all, so I don’t see the point. How are you supposed to describe a useful technical thing to users?
This is supposedly the Opus 4.7 model card. It's okay for it to be marketing for Opus 4.7 and describe what it can do, and even okay for it to talk about what it does better than the last generation. GP was saying it sounds like marketing for Mythos (a different and unreleased model). I don't want the Opus 4.7 model card to be advertising for something else.
For context, the word "Mythos" appears 331 times in a 221 page document. "Opus 4.6" appears 240 times, so a reference to a model that nobody has really used happens more often than the reference to the last generation model.
I just tried it. It downloaded Qwen3.5 2B on my phone and it's pretty coherent in its sentences, but really annoying with the amount of Ente products mentioned in every occasion.
Other than that it's fast enough to talk to and definitely an easy way to run a model locally on your phone.
This is the wrong argument. Claiming that Mozilla is doing it wrong because the technology purist part of their userbase decided they don't want AI is simply short-sighted.
The kill switch is the best option, because it let's Firefox be like a typical user would expect, while still giving the option to deactivate things. Deactivate by default and the typical user feels patronized.
Historically, it was a rather famous page. It's a watchblog by the German security expert Felix Von Leitner. It exists since 2005, but since May this year, he didn't write anything until one new entry that you can see here: http://blog.fefe.de/?mon=202512
reply