Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@ShadSterling @chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91 translation is already opt-in. You're prompted about it, and the model is only downloaded if you say you want it.
@ShadSterling @chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91
You're *constantly* prompted about it on every single site you visit. Calling that opt-in stretches the definition of consent.
-
@Rycochet @firefoxwebdevs @zzt I did not follow all what happened around Firefox and the community. Did Mozilla made a public consultation regarding AI integration in Firefox ?
Do we have some reliable datas about the opinion of the Firefox's users ?I would be interested to know if the critical views (that I mostly share) expressed here are largely shared or not.
@fmasy @Rycochet @firefoxwebdevs @zzt You can look at the discussions on Mozilla Connect if you want commentary from community members.
Mozilla does occasionally run surveys, but results are never public.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs I would rather like for auxiliary features to be added via the extensions API.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs There's nothing intrinsically wrong with AI. If you can do translation on device in a privacy-preserving way, there's no reason to disable it.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs I'm not a fan of this all or nothing approach to functionality. What happened to the paradigm of things being scope and/or time-limited, eg just for this page, for x minutes?
-
@firefoxwebdevs I'm not a fan of this all or nothing approach to functionality. What happened to the paradigm of things being scope and/or time-limited, eg just for this page, for x minutes?
@scribe it isn't all or nothing (the currently winning option is granular control). This is the first time I've heard a request for AI to be disabled in a time-limited way. Tell me more about your use-case.
-
@fmasy @Rycochet @firefoxwebdevs @zzt You can look at the discussions on Mozilla Connect if you want commentary from community members.
Mozilla does occasionally run surveys, but results are never public.
-
@scribe it isn't all or nothing (the currently winning option is granular control). This is the first time I've heard a request for AI to be disabled in a time-limited way. Tell me more about your use-case.
@firefoxwebdevs I think it's less about use cases and more about general trust, as privacy often boils down to. If you're talking about an AI "kill switch", you're talking about trust in what's been defined as "AI", and trust in the browser developer as a whole.
Once definitions are murky, there's an area open for ongoing redefinition. One way to adopt a "private by default" approach is to follow what cookies do, for instance, and allow users to allow limits to the extents of permissions.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs there's a huge difference between calling out to an external llm service and using the translation-specific on-device models.
(If, hypothetically, llm's like chatgpt were not a thing, would people have such visceral reactions against the translatelocally models?)
-
@firefoxwebdevs @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt a self-selecting survey with push-poll questions that deliberately leave out the "no LLMs in Firefox" option is unlikely to be statistically valid
(also we know this is just noise and Mozilla will do whatever was planned in the meeting anyway)
-
@firefoxwebdevs @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt a self-selecting survey with push-poll questions that deliberately leave out the "no LLMs in Firefox" option is unlikely to be statistically valid
(also we know this is just noise and Mozilla will do whatever was planned in the meeting anyway)
@davidgerard @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt I realise your position is immutable, but I've already used the results of this survey to push for a change to the design of the kill switch. I'm grateful to everyone who responded.
-
@firefoxwebdevs there's a huge difference between calling out to an external llm service and using the translation-specific on-device models.
(If, hypothetically, llm's like chatgpt were not a thing, would people have such visceral reactions against the translatelocally models?)
@unhammer a lot of folks in the replies & responders to the poll feel differently. I personally agree with you, but I want the kill switch to have broader appeal.
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs where did I say I'm uncomfortable with the name "kill switch"?
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs in the quoted post included as the reference
-
@firefoxwebdevs I think it's less about use cases and more about general trust, as privacy often boils down to. If you're talking about an AI "kill switch", you're talking about trust in what's been defined as "AI", and trust in the browser developer as a whole.
Once definitions are murky, there's an area open for ongoing redefinition. One way to adopt a "private by default" approach is to follow what cookies do, for instance, and allow users to allow limits to the extents of permissions.
@scribe I'm not sure cookies are a great source of inspiration when it comes to privacy
-
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs in the quoted post included as the reference
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs but I didn't say that. Get your words out of my mouth.
-
@firefoxwebdevs @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt I was talking about the surveys pushed within Firefox: https://www.askvg.com/tip-disable-surveys-rate-your-experience-out-of-date-notifications-in-firefox/
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs but I didn't say that. Get your words out of my mouth.
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs
> I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name
those don't appear to be words of comfort
what is this "how dare you take 2+2 and get 4 I am outraged at your calumnies" shit
-
@davidgerard @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt I realise your position is immutable, but I've already used the results of this survey to push for a change to the design of the kill switch. I'm grateful to everyone who responded.
@firefoxwebdevs @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet is the change to the design of the kill switch that it doesn’t exist because all of Firefox’s AI features will be moved into add-ons that aren’t installed by default?
if not, you’ve used the results of the poll to misrepresent community opinion and @davidgerard’s quote unquote “immutable position”, whatever that means to people who don’t speak passive aggressive post-it note, is absolutely correct
-
@davidgerard @RAOF If your core belief is that Mozilla is failing to serve at the benefit of its members, then what are you even doing on this thread? You just hoping to harass the Dev account until they block you out of spite?
What evidence could any of us provide that would change your mind and cause you to become a Mozilla booster instead?
-
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs
> I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name
those don't appear to be words of comfort
what is this "how dare you take 2+2 and get 4 I am outraged at your calumnies" shit
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name because folks internally have said that. I expressed no discomfort with the name personally. I used it again in the poll post. I clearly have no personal issue with using it.
