Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@firefoxwebdevs an important addendum regarding Firefox translate: by my math (N = my replies), 25% of its users are fucking unhinged
I told them not to use the necronomicon to train the base model but here we fucking are
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs Sorry, but I just cannot escape the call for #ShamelessPlug (though, as usual, #IHaveNothingToSell
-
@zzt I posted this poll after a meeting where we discussed the design of the kill switch, and there was uncertainty around translations. I want to make sure the community's voice is represented in these discussions.
@firefoxwebdevs Perhaps it would be a good idea to do occasional one-time surveys of Firefox users - like when they start the browser up after an update. That way you get to hear directly from the people who are using it. Lots of folk on the socials have strong opinions but aren't necessarily using FF as a daily driver.
If I was writing the questions they might include things like...
- Should FF enable new AI features by default? [y/n]
- Would you like to be able to see at a glance which AI features are enabled? [y/n]
- Are there any particular features (AI or not!) that you feel FF is missing, and which you would actually use on a regular basis?
On that last one, I would maybe have some check boxes for things that tend to come up again and again like native RSS reader, FTP, Gemini (protocol!), WebUSB, WebSerial, UXP etc.
-
@twifkak I think you're mixing up "We do not own" with "We do not have rights to".
@tasket Perhaps. Show me what rights they have to it.
-
@firefoxwebdevs My closest answer would be "no", but I think the question is kind of mis-phrased here, and that's probably going to lead to a confusing and potentially misleading outcome.
The problem that people have is not with "AI" as a generalized category, but with the current generation of thieving, climate-destroying, grifting systems that are marketed as AI to an overwhelming degree - notably LLMs and "generative AI", but really anything with those inconsiderate properties.
If your kill switch is presented as an "AI kill switch", then depending on the person they're either going to understand that as "exploitative tech", or as "machine learning", and so make different assumptions as to whether local translation is included in that.
So I think you'll have to be a lot more explicit about what you mean; either by describing clearly what the kill-switch includes, or what it excludes, right in the place where the option is offered. Otherwise it's damned if you do, damned if you don't; depending on whether you include translations, either one or another group is going to be upset with the unexpected behaviour.
So, ethically, if the translation feature is built on ethically collected data, and it has no outsized climate impact, then I would not consider it something that needs to be included in a "get rid of all of it" kill switch. But to convey this clearly to users, both that and why it isn't included should be explained right there with the button, with potentially a second-step option to disable it anyway if someone still feels uncomfortable with it.
That way you've transparently communicated to users and shown that you have nothing up your sleeve by immediately and proactively offering them an option to disable that, too, if they have already shown interest in removing "AI" features.
@firefoxwebdevs Here's a concrete example of what I mean, that should be pretty consistent with the Firefox UI design:
-
@wes @firefoxwebdevs Sure. But can we agree that it does not represent a core functionality of a web browser?
Like "this meeting could've been an email," but "this feature could've been an add-on."
A web browser should load web pages, allow you to interact with them, and offer add-on support for functionality that doesn't match the definition of "web browser." It's all pretty straight-forward if you're not a marketer, whose brains are all broken.
> A web browser should load web pages, allow you to interact with them ...
I would point out that translating a web page written in a non-native language allows me to interact with said page. Your argument can go both ways.
-
@firefoxwebdevs My closest answer would be "no", but I think the question is kind of mis-phrased here, and that's probably going to lead to a confusing and potentially misleading outcome.
The problem that people have is not with "AI" as a generalized category, but with the current generation of thieving, climate-destroying, grifting systems that are marketed as AI to an overwhelming degree - notably LLMs and "generative AI", but really anything with those inconsiderate properties.
If your kill switch is presented as an "AI kill switch", then depending on the person they're either going to understand that as "exploitative tech", or as "machine learning", and so make different assumptions as to whether local translation is included in that.
So I think you'll have to be a lot more explicit about what you mean; either by describing clearly what the kill-switch includes, or what it excludes, right in the place where the option is offered. Otherwise it's damned if you do, damned if you don't; depending on whether you include translations, either one or another group is going to be upset with the unexpected behaviour.
So, ethically, if the translation feature is built on ethically collected data, and it has no outsized climate impact, then I would not consider it something that needs to be included in a "get rid of all of it" kill switch. But to convey this clearly to users, both that and why it isn't included should be explained right there with the button, with potentially a second-step option to disable it anyway if someone still feels uncomfortable with it.
That way you've transparently communicated to users and shown that you have nothing up your sleeve by immediately and proactively offering them an option to disable that, too, if they have already shown interest in removing "AI" features.
@joepie91 yeah, I agree with all that, but even tech folks are asking for a way to 'get rid of AI'. I'm pretty certain if we tried to redefine what they're asking for, it would be received poorly.
-
@tasket Perhaps. Show me what rights they have to it.
@twifkak They're using the "PD" mark, thus public domain.
-
@joepie91 yeah, I agree with all that, but even tech folks are asking for a way to 'get rid of AI'. I'm pretty certain if we tried to redefine what they're asking for, it would be received poorly.
@firefoxwebdevs That's exactly the motivation behind my suggestion, though - I've attached a mockup in an additional reply to hopefully make it clearer, but the idea here is to not redefine it so much as it is to explicitly pick a definition, and then provide an additional option for the broader definition, so that a user can essentially pick whichever definition they are following without getting into the technical weeds too much.
-
@twifkak They're using the "PD" mark, thus public domain.
@twifkak Also notice that Mastodon instances are using LibreTranslate.
Has that been debated as well?
-
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 Automatic translations are good and an internet in which people don't feel like they can't speak their native tongue for fear of losing their audience can only be a good thing.
Not sure how any reasonable person can believe that such a domain-specific model begets similar ethical objections as modern LLMs.
You know, folks don't hate AI because they're scared of neural networks...
-
@twifkak They're using the "PD" mark, thus public domain.
-
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’d say keep the translation thing and simply lose all the other LLM/GenAI/chatbot stuff altogether*. I think this is an excellent marketing opportunity. There are plenty of people highly skeptical of “AI”. This is a big market! You could be the next Brother, winning by refraining from shooting yourself in the foot (https://www.theverge.com/23642073/best-printer-2023-brother-laser-wi-fi-its-fine). And you’ll be ahead of the curve when The Bubble pops.
I’m not kidding.(*they can still be opt in plugins)
-
@firefoxwebdevs The frame of this question is risible.
I am begging you to just make a web browser.
Make it the best browser for the open web. Make it a browser that empowers individuals. Make it a browser that defends users against threats.
Do not make a search engine. Do not make a translation engine. Do not make a webpage summariser. Do not make a front-end for an LLM. Do not make a client-side LLM.
Just. Make. A. Web. Browser.
Please.
@m0rpk @firefoxwebdevs quite honestly, you're off the mark, **a lot**.
A browser with a built-in translator is a door opener for the open web for so many people that don't read English well enough to benefit from the dominant corpus of technological, cultural and scientific websites.
Firefox could indeed remove that functionality and instead of letting people translate websites on their phone make them use the google translate app that directly. Congrats on how you've advocated for the open web. -
@firefoxwebdevs I don't care. Local translation in FF is on the level of free early 2000s web translators. So maybe just remove it and add it again, when it's production ready
@flxtr @firefoxwebdevs as someone who used these in the early 2000s: no, it's not. It's not as good as DeepL, but it's worlds ahead of machine translation in the 2000s.
-
@joepie91 yeah, I agree with all that, but even tech folks are asking for a way to 'get rid of AI'. I'm pretty certain if we tried to redefine what they're asking for, it would be received poorly.
@firefoxwebdevs @joepie91 i'm a "tech folk". Just give us a version of firefox with zero AI. Translation can either be an extension or not there. We ask of you to supply a base for broSing the web, the rest is what the community delivers.
We won't ask you to integrate ad blockers, but we have them.
We won't ask you to integrate quick procy switchers, but we have them.Stop the feature creep and go back to the roots, make a very good browser with extension support and let people make the rest.
-
@angelfeast @twifkak No, I don't think so. It says this (with a takedown compliance process posted afterward)...
License
These data are released under this licensing scheme: PD
We do not own any of the text from which these data has been extracted.
We license the actual packaging of these parallel data under the Creative Commons CC0 license ("no rights reserved"). -
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 you came up with the "killswitch" as if it was opt-in (it's *clearly* opt-out!), you put translate and llm-stuff into one box, *you* are the ones engaging in worst faith. why don't you go ahead and ask us why we're punching ourselves?
-
@wes @firefoxwebdevs Sure. But can we agree that it does not represent a core functionality of a web browser?
Like "this meeting could've been an email," but "this feature could've been an add-on."
A web browser should load web pages, allow you to interact with them, and offer add-on support for functionality that doesn't match the definition of "web browser." It's all pretty straight-forward if you're not a marketer, whose brains are all broken.
@liquor_american @wes @firefoxwebdevs This is super reductive. There is not some canonical definition of "web browser".
-
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs OK, now make the same argument for the spell-checker, sync, and the set of CAs, etc. etc. supplied with the browser. Its as if y'all were trained by Microsoft PR to take the arguments Mozilla used against tying IE to Windows and extend them ad-absurd-um to features in Mozilla's own browser ("just turn it around back in their faces" said the Armani suit).
Meanwhile, Red Hat is quietly undermining any legal basis for copyleft and leaning into the idea that gratis products (Fedora) shouldn't have robust & transparent system update tools. Oh and the umpteen other for-profit controlled (opposite of Mozilla) FOSS projects that get plugged in these spaces pretty much constantly. Linux Foundation being controlled by Microsoft and Google...? crickets chirping.
This is what makes me tired of IT and geek culture. Its become like everything else, just kneejerk crap with zero reflection and sense of proportion. As I hinted above, it morphs into this shadow of corporate PR. Consider, if people spent their time criticizing actual badness in Firefox, like ad tracking and DoH, that would be inconvenient for certain interests from Brave on up to Apple and Google. I think the style and quality of venting we usually see about Mozilla serves those interests, much of it probably fed by sock puppets.
"Meanwhile, Red Hat is quietly undermining any legal basis for copyleft and leaning into the idea that gratis products (Fedora) shouldn't have robust & transparent system update tools."
it's a bit off topic, but would you mind elaborating more about the system update tools? i'm out of the loop on that, and it sounds concerning
-
@firefoxwebdevs you came up with the "killswitch" as if it was opt-in (it's *clearly* opt-out!), you put translate and llm-stuff into one box, *you* are the ones engaging in worst faith. why don't you go ahead and ask us why we're punching ourselves?
@malte there will be granular options for this stuff. The question is about the non-granular "kill switch".
