Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
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 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
-
@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
Can Firefox devs put up a Yes/No poll on whether they should just make a web browser? My vote is Yes. -
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?
Are you measuring the percentage of users engaging witj your AI chat options vs. those ignoring them? What are the numbers?
How many users have you lost since?
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs
In my admittedly limited experience with exceptionally dubious features that the users don't want, but the executives do, it's also not truly an 'AI kill switch' until it also fires the people responsible for putting 'AI' into the thing in the first place.
@theogrin @davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs
Also "AI kill switch" is ambiguous as to whether a human throws the switch to kill the AI or whether the AI throws the switch to kill a human -
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 ...AI & ML should be off by default.
-
@tassoman @firefoxwebdevs the question is about the page translation feature, not chats.
@shadowwwind
And as shared elsethread, they're pretty open with that feature: https://github.com/mozilla/translationsIncluding pointing us to the training data they use, if I'm reading this right.
@tassoman -
@davidgerard @theorangetheme @theogrin @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social Such a waste, too. Years of standards fighting, differentiation with Gecko, then Quantum (see? I WAS a follower all along!) and being a model of what Open Source stewardship could mean for the larger Internet.
RIP Mozilla, if you thought you were floundering as a Not for Profit Corp, you're worse than useless as a Marketing Agency.
@Tock @davidgerard @theorangetheme @theogrin (Quick interjection: I love that everybody cares about Firefox enough to be bothered. If we didn’t, we’d be ignoring it completely. Nobody is talking about Opera.)
I get all this. My worry is that everyone just turns their backs on Firefox and abandons it, it’ll just go away. And that leaves us with Chromium ONLY.
I think we need to find productive ways to get what we need and stand firm on that. But killing it is not good for the web ecosystem.
-
@tasket if you want a serious discussion about the role translations should or shouldn’t have in a browser, let me refer you to steve: https://hci.social/@fasterandworse/115849566354469222
I don’t really feel anything about the translations feature other than disappointment, a bit of concern over how the data was sourced, and a strong feeling that it shouldn’t be a core browser feature
@zzt
Here's the datasets they're using: https://opus.nlpl.eu/corpora
@tasket -
@davidgerard @mdavis@mastodon.social @firefoxwebdevs “but wait just let me explain the AI kill switch”, Mozilla continues to insist, as they slowly expand and transform into an SBF
@zzt @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs Mozilla spent 25 years being unable to get the "don't use tabs" preference to work and I'm supposed to believe their "turn off AI" preference will work?
-
@davidgerard @mdavis@mastodon.social @firefoxwebdevs “but wait just let me explain the AI kill switch”, Mozilla continues to insist, as they slowly expand and transform into an SBF
@zzt @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs What Mozilla needs now is an "AI kill switch" that can actually kill.
-
@zzt @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs Mozilla spent 25 years being unable to get the "don't use tabs" preference to work and I'm supposed to believe their "turn off AI" preference will work?
@jwz @zzt @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs Isn't it Open Source?
-
@zzt @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs What Mozilla needs now is an "AI kill switch" that can actually kill.
@jwz @zzt @firefoxwebdevs we added an extension to send 440 volts through the other guy's chair
1M+ installs first week, 0 users remaining second week
-
@jwz @zzt @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs Isn't it Open Source?
@dejantesicnaarm *plonk*
-
@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?
-
@firefoxwebdevs What do you mean "open data"? https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/toolkit/components/translations/resources/01_overview.html points to https://browser.mt/ points to https://paracrawl.eu/index.php which says "We do not own any of the text from which these data has been extracted."
@twifkak @firefoxwebdevs +1, the definition of “open data” is extremely important.
It’s only okay if it was *consensually* trained.
-
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 want Firefox to be a great web browser. You'll notice that I didn't say LLM, ML, AI or anything like that. I don't want that stuff. I just want FF to be a good web browser without being infected by AI. Why is that difficult to understand?
-
@chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91
️ But that alone won’t be enough to rebuild trust; I’d like to suggest something that would help with that, but unfortunately that’s far outside my wheelhouse
️@ShadSterling @chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91 Rebuilding trust is exactly that - you can't restore or reset trust, you have to build it again, over time and multiple instances, just as you did the first time. Unlike your past self, you've already shown that you will violate trust, so it will take more time and more instances.
Anything less doesn't result in actual trust.
I agree that "AI" isn't going to work as a term to build trust.
-
@cassidy @firefoxwebdevs this is because it's an AI marketing lie. "ha, you say you hate slop, so does that mean you hate *xrays* now? Checkmate, AI hater!"
@davidgerard @cassidy @firefoxwebdevs Even the goalposts are slop now.
-
@firefoxwebdevs "Without the user's request" is quite ambiguous, though. I'm reminded here of Google, which put the AI tab before the Web/All tab, displacing it so that people would unintentionally hit the AI button and "request" it. It's a small and plausibly-deniable change that nevertheless violates the user's boundaries, and difficult to call out and stop even internally within a company or team. I've seen many companies and software do the same thing.
A genuine opt-in would, in my opinion, look something like a single "hey do you want such-and-such features? these are the implications" question, presented in a non-misleading way, and if that is not answered affirmatively then the various UI elements for "AI" features should not even appear in the UI unless the user goes and changes this setting. It's much harder for that to get modified in questionable ways down the line, and reduces the 'opportunities for misclick' to a single one instead of "every time someone wants to click a button". It also means users aren't constantly pestered with whatever that week's new "AI" thing is if they've shown no interest.
Such a dialog could still specify something like "if you choose Yes, Firefox will still only download models once you try to use a feature", to make it clear to users that it's not an all-or-nothing, and they can still pick-and-choose after selecting 'Yes'.
@joepie91 @firefoxwebdevs Mozilla's tortured definition of opt-in seems to predict that Mozilla will invent features to nag you into enabling AI, as they have already done with Link Previews: https://www.quippd.com/writing/2026/01/06/architecting-consent-for-ai-deceptive-patterns-in-firefox-link-previews.html
-
@jwz @zzt @firefoxwebdevs we added an extension to send 440 volts through the other guy's chair
1M+ installs first week, 0 users remaining second week
@davidgerard @jwz @zzt @firefoxwebdevs
Finally, someone is getting rich and/or famous by stabbing people over the internet.
