Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@firefoxwebdevs @noah We also don't trust to you keep your word.
@mu @firefoxwebdevs @noah speak for yourself.
-
@duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard @tante
hoping @zenbrowser, based on FF, will stay away from this
@dgoosens In the past, @zenbrowser has actively disabled AI features from FF, so I think it’s looking good.
-
@espadrine I personally agree with you, but most respondents to the poll do not. It seems like, if the AI switch did not disable translations, folks would not have trust in the setting.
@firefoxwebdevs Anecdotically, I clicked "Yes" because my first instinct was to focus on semantics, but what I really want as a user is to not crowd menus with entries which are not user-helping.
-
@firefoxwebdevs How about "don't put pointless AI bullshit into your browser in the first place so you don't have to ask asinine loaded questions like this to try to con people into not turning all that shit off.
@digitalraven @firefoxwebdevs how come a local translation is bs?
-
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 stop trying to force AI slop down our throats
-
Let's ask the real question:
Firefox users,
do you want any AI directly built into Firefox, or separated out into extensions?
@duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard @tante
.
Forget focus. It should not contain any tiny trace of AI in any way shape or form. -
@RAOF @mage_of_dragons @cassidy @firefoxwebdevs the question was started clearly, yet 75% of respondents feel translation should be disabled by the switch. It doesn't seem like willful misinterpretation when the evidence is right there.
@jaffathecake @RAOF @mage_of_dragons @cassidy @firefoxwebdevs you can’t just take data from a bad poll and call it evidence
-
@firefoxwebdevs I would rather like for auxiliary features to be added via the extensions API.
@truh @firefoxwebdevs I generally agree, but I can see exceptions for things such as accessibility features (translation is accessibility), and other features that extend user facing non-ai features and are done with local small models, as long as they are off by default.
-
@firefoxwebdevs alternative perspective:
Remove all AI-LLM, AI-ML related functionality.
Then have target end-user (web developer) choose, informed by their values & preferences what functional components they’d like to “plug-in” to web-browser for ML content processing for web page-
- Language translation - enable on device locally download-on-demand ML or use your own
- Dictionaries
- …
Once these are real-world validated & functional, they can be shared via open source commons with others.@dahukanna @firefoxwebdevs this thread is not about an LLM, or AI-ML feature.
Translations are an accessibility feature, essential for many around the world, this should be a native feature, unless you don' t care about accessibility.
-
@firefoxwebdevs rather than mess about with kill switches for a product most people don't want, strip all that AI crap out of the browser and make extensions that integrate with various LLM models so those who do want it can add it but don't force this slop on everyone by default
I've been a FF user since the beta days and have now switched to Librewolf because of the AI and ad tech bloat in FF
It makes me sad to see FF decline in this way & become another AI bloated browser
@viralobscurity @firefoxwebdevs this feature doesn't use an LLM... and it's about accessibility, accessibility shouldn't be an optional feature.
-
Let's ask the real question:
Firefox users,
do you want any AI directly built into Firefox, or separated out into extensions?
@duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard @tante
If they absolutely must board the slop train, do it as an extension. That would, of course, defeat their real goal of sucking up all our information and further inflate the bullshit bubble. -
@vik
your sentence makes no sense: both as a plugin or integrated in a browser, folks are needed to implement it. The fact it would be an extension doesn't change that.Also it's not exclusive. There are people working on the translation engine. There are people working on improving the platform. There are people working on the Firefox frontend.
@julienw
I'm sorry you don't get it, but don't worry, we do.
@funkylab @m0rpk @firefoxwebdevs -
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 put every A.I. things on plugins … so no need for kill switch anymore
-
Let's ask the real question:
Firefox users,
do you want any AI directly built into Firefox, or separated out into extensions?
@duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard @tante
I don't care as long as it doesn't interfere with proper browsing.
-
@mdavis I believe it's a moral stance due to how the models were produced.
It is very much a trust issue. The track record of AI training is not good. To taint Firefox with the same trust issues is dangerous. The people mainly using Firefox does it because of the failing trust in other platforms. This trust when lost takes a very long time to earn again.
-
@jaffathecake @RAOF @mage_of_dragons @cassidy @firefoxwebdevs you can’t just take data from a bad poll and call it evidence
@cobweb what details about the poll do you feel are incorrect, and how do you feel the incorrectness impacted the result?
-
@CyberPunker @firefoxwebdevs kill switch doesn't mean opt-out, it means have a single button to disable it.
The thing is that an user might have switched on a couple of AI features, and might have changed its mind, and wanted to disable it all permanently or temporarily, and having a single button to do that is very useful.
@DiogoConstantino @firefoxwebdevs A "live switch" would do the same but has to be activated before to enable the slop.
Seeing that FF activated the slop without having the option to deactivate it (beside in about:config) lets me think the "kill switch" would/will mean opt-out. -
@julienw
I'm sorry you don't get it, but don't worry, we do.
@funkylab @m0rpk @firefoxwebdevs@vik no, you're just grandstanding. Don't be an arse on the internet.
-
@angelfeast @zzt @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @davidgerard as in, you don't think there should be an option to re-enable it, or that it should be enabled by default?
@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.
-
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 which option is "LLM ('AI') features should not be in Firefox"? The others are just affirming the consequent - I don't want an "AI kill switch" to turn off translation, because I don't want it to exist because there's no "AI" for it to "kill".
I don't care how useful some people find LLMs for some tasks. It is irrelevant; there is no ethical use of LLMs, based on the individual and cumulative impact of literally every single step in their creation and operation. That shit can go fuck all the way off, and then it can fuck off some more. There is no "but, for this user case...", because there is not and cannot be an ethical, acceptable calculus to even *compare* the negatives to whichever economic metrics or feels one might wave about. The discussion is bullshit, the costs are *intrinsically* unacceptable, full stop.
