Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@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".
-
@firefoxwebdevs come on man.
@dante seems like a valid question to me. I mean it's literally a different tool than prompted genAI, and the definition of "AI" keeps shifting.
-
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?
I chose “No”. I find the translation feature very useful and greatly appreciate that is is local.
I do however think the local translate functionality should have an enable/disable switch right next to the AI enable/disable switch along with a brief and expanded description of functionality and locality of the feature.
-
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 nobody wants any of it.
The machine learning, the LLM, the translations, the "open model", the "open data" the open model uses, the kill switch, none.
I've use firefox since 2005 maybe 2006, even spent about 8 hours compiling it on my laptop to have it.
I've keept using your software despite its many flaws because you provided something.
You putting AI is taking the one advantage that justified using firefox over the alternatives.Just to name a few flaws:
* In the last 20 years I've not managed to make firefox keep 2 dictionaries installed and working as expected over time.* I'm having to download firefox focus from your FTP because you don't seem to want to have it available outside of the play store.
Why don't you maintain a f-droid repo for it?* Where is USB midi support? Where is most of the USB support?
So much stuff we have to use chrome for.* Why do you hate people restoring tabs?
Why move the lines to restore the tabs and delete said tabs next to each other?The AI push in your software makes none of the effort of using firefox worth it.
-
@firefoxwebdevs Here's a concrete example of what I mean, that should be pretty consistent with the Firefox UI design:
@joepie91 I think a lot of people in the replies would consider this sneaky. It's a tricky UX problem. But yes, granular control needs to be part of the solution, along with a kill switch.
-
@malte there will be granular options for this stuff. The question is about the non-granular "kill switch".
@firefoxwebdevs you can't cherry-pick yourself out of your general bad faith engagement.
-
@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.
@m I agree the folks I'm polling here do not represent the average user, but in this case I'm specifically interested in the thoughts of those who really dislike 'AI', and I think I've reached them
-
@liquor_american @wes @firefoxwebdevs This is super reductive. There is not some canonical definition of "web browser".
@tedmielczarek @wes @firefoxwebdevs Yes, this is what the marketers keep trying to convince us of.
-
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 As worded, and if we can trust Mozilla, then the acceptable answer should be No for these reasons: ML is not AI, and on-device means nothing is sent out of the device. In exchange you get free translation. Win.
BUT… there’s the trust issue now.
And what we REALLY need is not an AI kill switch but more of a “data transfer/phone-home kill switch”, almost like a firewall, where we know the browser is not taking any data and sending it to a device we don’t control ourselves.
-
@made @firefoxwebdevs There's already lots of work for on-device ML: https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/search?q=toolkit%2Fcomponents%2Fml
Integrating models into a finalized product with the wide spectrum of end-user devices is tricky though, so it has to be done with care.
@gregtatum @firefoxwebdevs great to hear! I can imagine! Thanks for the link
️ -
@firefoxwebdevs As worded, and if we can trust Mozilla, then the acceptable answer should be No for these reasons: ML is not AI, and on-device means nothing is sent out of the device. In exchange you get free translation. Win.
BUT… there’s the trust issue now.
And what we REALLY need is not an AI kill switch but more of a “data transfer/phone-home kill switch”, almost like a firewall, where we know the browser is not taking any data and sending it to a device we don’t control ourselves.
@mdavis folks want to disable 'AI' for more reasons than privacy. Privacy is important of course, but folks are also concerned about the training data, and energy used for the training.
-
@firefoxwebdevs not trying to split hairs here but how are the ML models doing translation when they are not LLMs? Maybe they are not as huge as ChatGPT but they are transformers probably with all that entails.
(A Killswitch should of course kill all ML/AI functionality and people could then reactivate certain specific features of they want to, it's really not that hard. Just cause you consider a feature"better" than others does not override consent practices.)
@tante it’s a SLM
-
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 tbh, the open embracement of AI, the addition of AI into the browser, while full well knowing your user base is well known for being anti big tech and privacy focused, was a mask-off moment.
I've already switched to librewolf, and I didn't have to disable/remove bullshit.
I recommend your ELT 1) get a grip and 2) remember you exist because of your userbase, not to please tech giants. If big tech had their way, they'd eat you alive. people who want AI slop aren't using Firefox.
-
@firefoxwebdevs It would also be compelling if a team at Mozilla were dedicated to building the best browser translation add-on on the market, for all browsers. To promote the power of add-ons and, at the same time, the Mozilla brand.
@fasterandworse there are no such interfaces to intercept input boxes with extensions I guess. And also why should Firefox improve other browsers?
-
@tante it’s a SLM
@eckes for that usage pattern the results would probably be even worse with more fabrications. So what are we even doing here?
-
@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 @zzt How about making a poll "Should Firefox include AI/LLM by default?"
-
@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.
@joepie91 agreed.
@firefoxwebdevs we're not in those meetings so we don't know what all is actually included within the AI module suite, or even if that has been fully defined internally at this point, so of course there won't be a clean consensus externally from us on what "it" is and if it should be included or excluded, as it's up to our interpretation.
-
@mdavis folks want to disable 'AI' for more reasons than privacy. Privacy is important of course, but folks are also concerned about the training data, and energy used for the training.
@firefoxwebdevs But if the ML/AI training work is processing on the device and not is shared off device, and it is in support of a feature like translating a page (which should be prompted/selectable) then what’s the issue? You can say no and nothing happens. Or you can say yes and the worse that happens is you chew up some local power on your laptop or PC. Or are you saying that even though the translation happens on the device, the RESULT of that training data is sent back out?
-
@joepie91 I think a lot of people in the replies would consider this sneaky. It's a tricky UX problem. But yes, granular control needs to be part of the solution, along with a kill switch.
@firefoxwebdevs I can only speak for myself of course, but I'm someone who is strongly opposed to sneaky approaches, like hiding things in submenus or requiring people to go back later to disable new things, for example. And I'm also strongly opposed to basically everything in the current generation of "AI" (LLMs, GenAI, etc.) - but personally I wouldn't consider this sneaky, as it's immediately visible that there's a second choice to make, at the exact moment you disable "AI".
Of course if that stops being the case and the second option gets hidden behind an "Advanced..." button or foldout for example, it would be sneaky. But in the way it's shown in my mockup, I would consider it fine as it's both proactively presented and immediately actionable.
(I do still think that exploitative "AI" things should be opt-in rather than opt-out, but it doesn't seem like that's within the scope of options that will be considered by Mozilla, so I'm reasoning within the assumption of an opt-out mechanism here)
