Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@zzt @jaffathecake @firefoxwebdevs this account will be shut down by the incoming AI CMO anyway as unauthorised marketing
@davidgerard @zzt @jaffathecake @firefoxwebdevs He sounds like a politician talking to the press. “I never said that.” “Yes you did.” “Well what I meant to say was…” “It was implied.” “Its the official position of the government….”
-
@jaffathecake @zzt @firefoxwebdevs your outrage is entirely performative and I don't believe you
@davidgerard @jaffathecake @firefoxwebdevs nah just look at the outrage we’ve stirred:
- many posts constructively outlining a path for Firefox (all non-core browser features as add-ons that aren’t installed by default), more than sufficient to establish consensus in a good faith environment
- lots of passionately negative responses to the poll as presented, more than sufficient to discard the poll in a good faith environment
- plenty of emotional posts because Firefox mattershow horrid!
-
@jaffathecake @davidgerard @mdavis@mastodon.social @firefoxwebdevs this is a real weird hill for you to die on
if you’re representing your employer and they’re uncomfortable with the kill switch naming, to the point where you keep encasing the term in scare quotes every time it’s used, then we can’t tell and frankly don’t care if you personally love the term. nobody’s here for Jake. do you understand that? we’re here because we’re dedicated Firefox users angry at the direction your employer has taken.
@zzt @jaffathecake @davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs
I'm not here because I'm a dedicated Firefox user. I'm here because: -
@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
This! So much THIS! -
@funkylab Frankly, because they very obviously need to put the effort into improving the core browser. By all means, they can prompt for a plug-in on installation, there are many around, and they are part of the Open Web rather than something you get plumbed in as if it were some piece of Microsoft bloatware. If they don't fix the browser, the whole concept of the Open Web becomes moot. @m0rpk @firefoxwebdevs
@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.
-
@funkylab My point is that I'm Very. Tired. of every company trying to cram unwanted cruft into their products at the expense of core features.
Of course people should be able to translate webpages.
You may not have noticed from my tone but I was being somewhat hyperbolic for rhetorical effect.
> Of course people should be able to translate webpages.
OK perfect, so now you agree with that and you might be able to answer the initial question.
-
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 Where's the option for "I do not want this bullshit toy anywhere near my browser"? Is someone forcing you at gunpoint to be pro-slop? Why are all the executives so into this crap? Can't we just let them have their cocaine daydreams without subject the rest of us to it?
-
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?
Let's ask the real question:
Firefox users,
do you want any AI directly built into Firefox, or separated out into extensions?
-
@firefoxwebdevs @zzt @yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet
>of folks who are sceptical of AI
What people should be concerned and my main concern about AI are:
-Is the software under copyleft ?
-Are the models under copyleft ?
-Is the data sourced from copyleft or copyleft compatible licenses ?
The FSF is right about this issue once again.
People being skeptical of AI is kinda legitimate when you listen to talks like the one Eric Schmidt did: https://github.com/ociubotaru/transcripts/blob/main/Stanford_ECON295%E2%A7%B8CS323_I_2024_I_The_Age_of_AI%2C_Eric_Schmidt.txt
He literally say that violating copyright is ok that lawyers will get around that and it's their problem, these people do not play fair, and don't want to, individuals cannot do this, small entities cannot do this without being accountable.
So what can we deduce from their words and action ? They don't want a free market ? The only vision they seem to have of the free market is a form of techno feudalism, the recent acquisition of RAM production by openAI is another good example of that.
And it doesn't help that the current usage of AI brought little positive results to people compared to the resources invested in it.
So of course people are dubious of AI, as the spotlight are on the biggest entities that looks like a bubble and it taste like a bubble.
>Do you feel the outcome of the poll is wrong?
Any polls on the internet is not to be trusted tbh. But sane choices like being able to deactivate functions should be a thing in any case. -
The Firefox AI "kill switch" is not "complicated" except insofar as it's incoherent. it's not "undisclosed nuance" except insofar as it's incoherent.
the "kill switch" doesn't exist.
this is important to keep in mind. once you remember that NONE OF THIS EXISTS, you will realise that every one of the dilemmas you posit is an imaginary problem that follows from incoherent postulates.
e.g. "AI kill switch purists" is not a coherent postulation because the "kill switch" does not exist.
the "kill switch" is a hypothetical proposed in this post:
https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782
the "kill switch" is a proposal to satisfy the demand for an opt-in by providing an opt-out. you might think that's a failure to respect the question, and you might even begin to suspect the proposal was in bad faith.
note that Jake, in presenting the kill switch and calling it a kill switch and getting it into all the papers as a kill switch, says he's uncomfortable with the name he's publicised it as. you might think that's oddly incompetent for literally a PR (devrel) person.
the concept as presented imposes multiple false dilemmas.
the LLM stuff should *incredibly obviously* be an extension. this is the purest possible opt-in, despite jake's past attempts to muddy the meaning of "opt-in".
making it an extension is also eminently feasible. There is literally no technical reason it needs to be a browser built-in.
this suggests the reasons are not in any way technical. some person with a name, who has yet to be named, dictated that it would be a built-in. so that's what Mozilla is going with.
why Mozilla went hard AI is entirely unclear. this would have been late 2024? we have no idea who was inspired with this bad idea nor why they were so incredibly keen to force it into the browser.
nor is it clear what Mozilla will do for external LLM services when the AI bubble runs out of venture capital and pops in a year or so, most of the chatbot APIs shut down and whatever remains is 10x the cost at least. but that's a problem for 2027's bonus, not 2026's.
note how the poll provides no option for "no LLM functions built-in to Firefox", in a pathetically transparent attempt to synthesize consent. jake wants to use this poll as evidence of what the user base wants, deliberately leaving out the option he knows directly a lot of them want.
and in conclusion:
1. solve the "kill switch" naming problem by branding it the "brutal and bloody robot murder switch with an option on the executives responsible".
2. make all this shit an extension like they should have a year ago.
3. and your little translator too.by the way, here's the Twitter version of the poll, posted the same time as the masto version. the screenshot is the *entire* responses to the poll, because Twitter is a plague graveyard.
https://xcancel.com/FirefoxWebDevs/status/2008586590998983153
note also the claim about "open data", which turns out to mean "we took the data cos someone found it lying around fell off the back of a truck honest" and not "open" in any other sense.
but the weird thing is, it has one less option for no good reason (Twitter allows four options too).
-
@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 I'm nitpicking here: it's not just energy, it's greenhouse geases emissions during training, and training data but also water used for cooling and DC space and water used for making GPUs and mining and destruction of life in the process. It's a lot broader than just energy. it's all about Life Cycle Assesment (LCA) and multiple impacts: GHG, water, pollution, etc. cc @mdavis
-
@mdavis I believe it's a moral stance due to how the models were produced.
@firefoxwebdevs indeed. cc @mdavis
-
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 would be fine for a deep learning model akin deepl but privacy first on device.
AI is a bullshit marketing terms.
-
@firefoxwebdevs But wait… what if the developers used AI to help develop the code in the browser itself? Does that mean AI kill switch purists should then rather not even use the product at all?
@mdavis @firefoxwebdevs As an example, firefox nuked all the community contributed documentation on their japanese pages in favour of machine translated AI-Slop, those are reasons we are very much against this, instead of well done human translations done with care it's now pure garbage.
-
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
4th option: i was a Firefox user until they fed it up with AI -
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 Why are so many people clicking "yes" here? I don't get why you wouldn't want to have a local offline translator that gives you privacy preserving translations by default. For me the AI kill switch should only kill services that actually send and request data from other companies, here it's just a local translator.
-
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 As long as Firefox has *anything* to do with the slop-generating plagiarism machine, it will not be used by me.
-
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
hoping @zenbrowser, based on FF, will stay away from this
-
@firefoxwebdevs Why are so many people clicking "yes" here? I don't get why you wouldn't want to have a local offline translator that gives you privacy preserving translations by default. For me the AI kill switch should only kill services that actually send and request data from other companies, here it's just a local translator.
@noah a lot of folks have (reasonable imo) concerns around how these models are trained. I'm not sure how much of that applies to the translation models, but feelings count here.
-
@firefoxwebdevs Where's the option for "I do not want this bullshit toy anywhere near my browser"? Is someone forcing you at gunpoint to be pro-slop? Why are all the executives so into this crap? Can't we just let them have their cocaine daydreams without subject the rest of us to it?
@StarkRG @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard Firefox only exists because Google subsidize them so they can point to FF as "proof" that Chrome isn't a monopoly. With the new regime in power, that's a dead issue. So Google want FF to push AI adoption now because they've figured out how to monetize it and they don't want precious eyeballs evading their slopware. If Google cut off their "search" payment to FF, Mozilla goes bust and the C-suite lose their jobs. QED.
