@raymaccarthy @plwt it's easy to say you don't have AI if you define it so it doesn't include features you have.

Folks consider translation to be generative AI https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115849251057488746

@firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

If you don't disregard overwhelmingly negative feedback regarding AI in Firefox while presentig a dead thread by like three people as "popular request for incorporating AI in Thunderbird" I think there's a possibility to rebuilt trust over time.

@firefoxwebdevs the default should be all of this turned off, without the passive aggressive UI.

@firefoxwebdevs @plwt
What Vivaldi says or does is irrelevant.

Mozilla did a stupid survey that didn't actually ask if people wanted AI or ML at all.

Most people just want a browser. No need for an AI off switch as there is no reason to have ANY ML or AI of ANY kind in the first place.
Mozilla by any sane metric has been making Thunderbird and Firefox worse for years. I used them practically from release on XP till 2016.
I used Waterfox with Classic Theme restorer for a while after GUI bork.

@emma note that the models aren't downloaded & used until you opt-in to one of the features.

The 'block' here removes those opt-in entry points, and any like it in future.

@raymaccarthy @plwt a lot of people find things like translation a valuable part of the platform, and makes the web more accessible - including me.

I personally think opening up more of the web via translation is a important feature to have in the browser.

@firefoxwebdevs I've already listened to what your leadership said and saw the vomit of a webpage y'all put up the other day, I'm done with Firefox unless there is a complete reversal and focus on just making a good browser, completely free of AI bullshit.

@firefoxwebdevs That sounds like you’re very defensive in all the hate you got the past months and made it worse in trying to give people the impression that they can make a strong statement by hitting "block".

But that’s what causes the reaction for me: if I make a strong statement, despite warning, then I mean it.

Asking "but how about this specific one" feels just like "but can a little bit really hurt?"

1/2

@firefoxwebdevs
For wording: [remove all] would match the intention you’re describing (the antonym of provide¹). And added

"default for future features: (available / unavailable)"

But not to be misunderstood:
I like it that you’re giving the option to disable all of them together. It’s just the way of implementation that feels so wrong.

It feels like FF is making a fuss about me stating my preference.

¹ https://www.powerthesaurus.org/provide/antonyms

2/2

@firefoxwebdevs @plwt
Unfortunately no-one is trustworthy. The results are dubious and entire page via browser (tested in Chromium & Firefox) is misleading and a privacy horror.

Hence I'll copy / paste fragments for translation.
A web browser should NOT be a platform, but simply render web pages for screen or "print" (which might be PDF).
Print is still abysmal.

Also it's obnoxious that the browser GUI ignores the OS GUI / theme/style and imposes an idiot one.

@firefoxwebdevs And I’ve really taken up enough of your time with this.

All I wanted to do was to give you user feedback on the UI. I did that now.

I didn’t want to spread aggression (though I got too emotional) or speak against the block option in general.

I know that UI is hard and that making UI choices that touch a heated societal debate is doubly so.

To sum it up: I’m sorry for stress I caused.

/cc @dveditz

@raymaccarthy @firefoxwebdevs The recent survey was not from the Mozilla Corporation (that makes Firefox), but from the Mozilla Foundation. I would not expect it to mention Firefox.

@raymaccarthy @firefoxwebdevs Catering for every UI would make maintaining the features that people like to use much more challenging.

@firefoxwebdevs I wonder how many people will still complain…

//checkes the comments

that's about right - tiny vocal minority is still absurdly butthurt…

@fabio @firefoxwebdevs survey only shows a tiny fraction of the total userbase. why it should influencethe default?

@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
No it's simpler. unless you are using a broken framework. I was writing desktop SW 15 years ago and without ANY extra work it used the Mac, Redhat, Ubuntu, XP or Vista theme in use.

Most programs on XP, Win7, Win10, Linux etc use the current theme.

@plwt @firefoxwebdevs
It was a survey about inclusion of AI that didn't ask if it was even wanted.

It's disingenuous to suggest it's not related to Firefox.

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz agreed with everything save for your apology. From the conversation, you were making your point rather clear & the response you got was evasiveness & gaslighting, so of course you'd get heated.

@kittyjynx @firefoxwebdevs
> a browser not infected with Google, Apple, and now Firefox code

Pale Moon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon

@firefoxwebdevs I mean ... as much as I appreciate the transparency for the sort of people who follow release notes and developer channels, the whole idea of putting this is a user-friendly and straightforward settings page is to help the un-tech-savvy users who don't.

Like, both my wife and my kid use Firefox and they're NEVER gonna read a release note.