The original hallucination:

threat assessment score, deportation priority level, case number

The new hallucination (also rule of 3):

surveillance, license plate readers, and cross-referenced databases

“Surveillance” and “databases” (what does cross-referenced even mean or add? LLMs like to output word salad) could be applicable, but only because they’re so damn vague. Yes, of course the government uses SQL.

License plate readers, sure they were involved…except that wasn’t even one of the original points. Find a model with better context length…lol. They also have nothing to do with self-hosting. What are you gonna do, run your own license plate issuing server?

Please, you can just say you used an LLM because English isn’t your first language or something. I’m literally giving you an out. It would be way less embarrassing than whatever you’re trying to accomplish.

Once? Try every single comment before this particular chain, except one. Sure it only generated that exact phrase once, but they’re all variations on you’re right, or that hits hard, or you nailed it, or whatever.

On another read, I would bet that this paragraph was originally bullet points.

Communication that can’t be shut down: Matrix, Mastodon, email servers you control File storage that can’t be subpoenaed: Nextcloud, Syncthing Passwords that aren’t in corporate databases: Vaultwarden, KeePass Media that doesn’t feed recommendation algorithms: Jellyfin, Navidrome Code repositories not owned by Microsoft: Forgejo, Gitea

You forgot one more tell that this post is riddled with - “not x, but y”. The rule of 3 is also seen in general sentence structure as well as bullet points. Example:

A woman was reduced to a data point in a database - threat assessment score, deportation priority level, case number - and then she was killed. Not by some rogue actor, but by a system functioning exactly as designed.

Em-dash (probably), into rule of 3, into em-dash, into not x but y. That sentence is what made me suspicious but there are plenty of other examples.

Well, that and…this killing had nothing to do with any of those points. The sentence sounds flashy but is completely wrong on closer examination. Almost like a…hallucination…ahem.

Alien has 4 fingers…nice touch

It’s really not ambiguous. Anyone can fork Firefox, make any changes they want, and release it with different branding. This is the goal of open source.

The term you’re looking for is free software. By making this change Firefox is no longer respecting the freedom of their users. That’s the “F” in FOSS. It’s possible for Firefox to remain open source without being free software.