Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@firefoxwebdevs @zzt You ignored the firefox userbase's voice when it came to adding AI in the first place, don't pretend you're listening now when you're really just trying to get the users to come up with justifications for what you have already decided to do. Firefox users have repeatedly said we do not want AI features imstalled by default, you chose not to listen and now you're trying to find ways you can feel less bad about that by pretending you gave people options when it comes to AI usage, rather than taking one away.
If you cared about what 'the community' wants, you would have asked people when the AI notion was first pitched and taken no for an answer, but yet again, AI enthusiasts have acted without consent.
-
@davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari
I don't agree with every point made here, but this is a truly wonderful manifesto, and I would gladly march behind it.
@jztusk @firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari mostly derived from @fasterandworse rants tbf
a "manifesto" is a polemic against the state of things. I think I'm describing the existing world here.
-
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt
By making something a plugin, I assume that means removing it from its current place - integrated into the browser. If I'm wrong about that, your option is unclear.
"it shouldn't be in the browser code in the first place" suggests to me removing it from the browser code, no?
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt why would moving if "from its current place" and making it an add-on be "unshipping"?
Convert it to an add-on, pre-install it, because we're past the opt-in point by now, then we can uninstall it like any other add-on and you can all forget about a nonsense kill switch
-
@nuintari @firefoxwebdevs @angelfeast @heptapodEnthusiast Also, the destiny of all software kill switches against a marketing-driven feature is to be removed a year later. Our dude seems to think Mastodon users have no experience of the computer industry.
@davidgerard @nuintari @firefoxwebdevs @angelfeast @heptapodEnthusiast
Who are you to know, it's not like your name is in the firefox credits or something
/s -
@cstross @StarkRG @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard ...has google figured out how to monetize it? I still only see nonconsensual unasked for ai results in my searches. I'm definitely not paying for any of that
@autonomousapps @StarkRG @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard They have studies showing that if they show the AI results first, a significant proportion of google users stay on google (to explore the AI results) rather than following outbound links to the public web. Thereby giving google more opportunities to shove google's own ads under the users noses.
It really *is* that moronic.
-
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt
By making something a plugin, I assume that means removing it from its current place - integrated into the browser. If I'm wrong about that, your option is unclear.
"it shouldn't be in the browser code in the first place" suggests to me removing it from the browser code, no?
@firefoxwebdevs @fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @zzt make it a preinstalled addon, easy. Mozilla has done preinstalled addons lots before.
-
@nuintari @firefoxwebdevs @angelfeast @heptapodEnthusiast Also, the destiny of all software kill switches against a marketing-driven feature is to be removed a year later. Our dude seems to think Mastodon users have no experience of the computer industry.
@davidgerard @nuintari @firefoxwebdevs @angelfeast @heptapodEnthusiast Once Lucy pulls the football away from you for the 10,000th time, you can't help but learn not to trust the MBAs touching your computer.
-
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt why would moving if "from its current place" and making it an add-on be "unshipping"?
Convert it to an add-on, pre-install it, because we're past the opt-in point by now, then we can uninstall it like any other add-on and you can all forget about a nonsense kill switch
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt only a couple of messages ago you said it would be an "add-on that the user has to explicitly install".
That sounds pretty different to pre-installing.
Can you see how, by taking your comment at face value, I assumed you meant the user would need to explicitly install it?
-
@jztusk @firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari mostly derived from @fasterandworse rants tbf
a "manifesto" is a polemic against the state of things. I think I'm describing the existing world here.
@davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @fasterandworse
Yeah, "manifesto" was a word choice that felt not quite right even as I was typing it.
But regardless of any better name, if you put "Firefox, Stop Trying To Be Noticed" on a banner, I would start marching behind it.
-
@firefoxwebdevs @fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @zzt your response again fails to address the many "make them all add-ons" responses.
@davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs @fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @zzt honestly the way Mozilla is going it's more likely they instead break the extension API to prop up their ad businesses
-
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt why would moving if "from its current place" and making it an add-on be "unshipping"?
Convert it to an add-on, pre-install it, because we're past the opt-in point by now, then we can uninstall it like any other add-on and you can all forget about a nonsense kill switch
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt if there are reasons this cannot be an add-on, then THAT is the discussion you should be having with the community. Because that is the barrier you have not addressed and it is what makes a kill switch so peculiar.
I don't appreciate your defensiveness, and false transparency posturing. You are prepared to ask for clarity from people asking softball questions, but you're ignoring the slew of "make it an add-on" suggestions
-
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt if there are reasons this cannot be an add-on, then THAT is the discussion you should be having with the community. Because that is the barrier you have not addressed and it is what makes a kill switch so peculiar.
I don't appreciate your defensiveness, and false transparency posturing. You are prepared to ask for clarity from people asking softball questions, but you're ignoring the slew of "make it an add-on" suggestions
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt it seems weird to say I'm ignoring it while I'm replying to your messages about it. Whereas you're moving the goalposts on what you want from explicit install to pre-install https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115854752514107340
-
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt if there are reasons this cannot be an add-on, then THAT is the discussion you should be having with the community. Because that is the barrier you have not addressed and it is what makes a kill switch so peculiar.
I don't appreciate your defensiveness, and false transparency posturing. You are prepared to ask for clarity from people asking softball questions, but you're ignoring the slew of "make it an add-on" suggestions
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt and you've just done it to me by saying that a mention of "explicit install" throws the baby out with the bathwater.
You've called @davidgerard 's position "immutable" as if we're unable to have a serious, unified stance against a very clear overstep between a passive web browser and the encroachment of something which is not that.
-
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt only a couple of messages ago you said it would be an "add-on that the user has to explicitly install".
That sounds pretty different to pre-installing.
Can you see how, by taking your comment at face value, I assumed you meant the user would need to explicitly install it?
@firefoxwebdevs @fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @davidgerard @zzt hey, that is what I meant when I typed it. I want the AI features to be so optional, that the end user has to go out of their way to install them as add-ons. That is what I meant when I said it.
-
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt it seems weird to say I'm ignoring it while I'm replying to your messages about it. Whereas you're moving the goalposts on what you want from explicit install to pre-install https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115854752514107340
@firefoxwebdevs @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt it seems weird that you think I'm going to play word games with you as if you don't have a hundred *written* responses to your poll saying that the kill switch is unnecessary if these were all add-ons.
-
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 voting in that poll, needs a "No AI" option.
-
@fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt
Given the poll was about translations, the option you wanted would amount to unshipping a largely well-regarded feature.
Again, did you seriously and honestly believe that was on the table for Firefox 148?
@firefoxwebdevs @fasterandworse @heptapodEnthusiast @nuintari @davidgerard @zzt Honestly, why not? You've done it before. Pocket, classic browser extensions, Chatzilla, a usable address bar, the option to switch back to a usable address bar, plugins, ... all "unshipped" and that's just off the top of my head.
-
@firefoxwebdevs @angelfeast @zzt @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @davidgerard
Missing option, if shouldn't be in the browser code in the first place. It should be an add-on that the user has to explicitly install.
A suspect lot of people voted for the, "but allow it to re-enabled," option due to it being the least shitty choice presented. Not because that is the behavior they actually desire.
I suspect, even more, that lack of ranked choice voting is hurting hard here.
A lot of people probably voted for the option presented that was closest to what they actually want. What they actually wabt isn't an option because Mozilla won't consider it.
But of the remaining options, there's a preference they'd have over the one they voted for.
Giving people a poll where the options they want are deliberately included is going to generate bad results which will only result in upsetting the community even more, because now you'll claim to have consent..
@firefoxwebdevs @angelfeast @zzt @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @davidgerard
-
@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 @davidgerard @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt
I'm not sure an official firefox account is allowed to make passive-aggressive snipes about "immutable positions", especially when it comes to AI.
-
@autonomousapps @StarkRG @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard They have studies showing that if they show the AI results first, a significant proportion of google users stay on google (to explore the AI results) rather than following outbound links to the public web. Thereby giving google more opportunities to shove google's own ads under the users noses.
It really *is* that moronic.
@cstross @StarkRG @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard oh geeze. I'm clearly in the minority. Thanks for explaining!
