@firefoxwebdevs Makes sense IMO, that's a better explanation. If the features don't run until the user explicitly wants to use the features, it's fine by me.

Does the AI Controls page specify that the AI models aren't downloaded until the specific feature(s) are used for the first time? Or does a linked help article from that page specify this?

It'd be nice to inform users about this in the browser, maybe even offer some details on how much storage the models use, and a link to the about:addons page for On-device AI to manage the installed models.

@froztbyte @barubary I don't doubt the honesty of people saying they don't want a particular feature to be available to them, or anyone else. Given it's more of a statement, I'm not sure what the acceptable response is, other than "ack".

I posted this a few weeks ago which I felt was a broad acknowledgement https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115859962325484652

@firefoxwebdevs is there a way to:

• do this via about:config?
• keep local translations enabled?

@jaffathecake No, that is not disgusting. And I did not say that was disgusting. I resent your implication that that is what I said, and I find the pattern of sneaking in little accusations into longer messages particularly dishonest and distasteful. It's deliberate and I find it disgusting.

"So no, I do not let people get away with that." What are you even talking about? That sentence is phrased like an answer, but it does not respond to any question I asked.

(Also, you went from "[thing] is disgusting" in my message to "[completely different thing] is disgusting" in your reply and ended on "if [completely different thing] is disgusting, I guess that's what I am", insinuating someone had called you personally disgusting. Which no one had even hinted at before your reply.)

Why are you talking at me if you're not going to respond to what I actually said?

@alextecplayz here's the help page, so you can judge for yourself https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-ai-controls. We mostly refrain from using "opt-in" because people have different definitions of opt-in, e.g. some have said it's only opt-in if it's in a separate binary.

I asked for UI that shows downloaded models, but there wasn't time for that in 148. I'll keep asking for it

@schrottkatze about:config is a less reliable way to configure Firefox, but I'm not sure if the setting are reflected there.

The video in the previous post shows blocking all current and future AI features, then specifically re-enabling local translations.

@firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

Not quite

The point is that permission prompts are shown when a permission is required to fulfill a user request.

To create a tab group in #Firefox you do not need #AI, so such popup-wide, easy to mis-click, button is a gratuitous waste of user attention. It's just an #ads of a feature that you want people to use and get used to.

As for this being #privacy preserving: where are the models downloaded from? Is it a #CDN that could identify otherwise logged users by their IP and thus learning about the fact they use such model? And how often Firefox will chech for model updates?

@jaffathecake @barubary “Not able to action” is quite load bearing

I offer to you: you could’ve made another poll, such as the one that outperformed yours. And then you could have taken those values and said in a meeting “hey, it kinda seems none of our users want this”

So I want to ask: are you under a directive that explicitly told you not to do that? Or perhaps under some implicit kind of situation (e.g. “I know $manager won’t listen”) which made you not even consider that?

@barubary your "this is disgusting" point was in reply to me challenging someone on sneaking untrue accusations into their longer posts. That sneaky behaviour is what I was referring to when I said "I do not let people get away with that".

I did give you the benefit of the doubt with the "if". I now know you're referring to something else.

Yes, there was a tangent, but if people don't want me to pick up on deliberate false accusations in their messages, I suggest they not make them.

@firefoxwebdevs oki good

I'd love if this stuff is either configurable via about:config or policies, since I'm able to generate those via nix but im not able access the normal settings which caused me quite some long nights of cursing and debugging in the past

@jaffathecake

your "this is disgusting" point was in reply to me challenging someone on sneaking untrue accusations into their longer posts

No. This is a direct lie.

@froztbyte @barubary

> are you under a directive that explicitly told you not to do that?

No.

> Or perhaps under some implicit kind of situation (e.g. “I know $manager won’t listen”) which made you not even consider that?

No, but a poll that gives me the evidence to say "hey, you know that place that has a strong representation of people who don't like AI? They don't like AI." did not seem like a good use of my time.

@barubary it was a reply to this post https://mastodon.social/@jaffathecake/116006262879508507. It seems reasonable to assume that this is what you were referring to by "this". But if you're saying otherwise, okay.

@duke_of_germany
just to confirm: i've used Firefox almost since it was released, and been the person who pushes it on people i know.

i've stopped using it, 100% caused by the odd priorities at Mozilla, with AI as the final drop.

not saying this in order to convince them to change direction. i'm gone and i no longer care. it's just a factual contribution to the discussion.

@jonny @jaffathecake @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard

@jaffathecake @barubary If the "untrue accusation" you're referring to is the (within quote-marks, but not a quite, instead a restating and possible hyperbole of your position) "anti-AI crazies", then you most definitely need to take a (virtual step back) and consider that it most probably was not ever intended to be a quote, @duke_of_germany can probably confirm, but having spent a fair while reading text written by human beings, I read the quote marks as indicating not a quote, but a somewhat hyperbolic summary.

Without the quotes, I probably would have interpreted it as an actual quote.

@froztbyte @barubary whereas, I'd seen mocks where you couldn't block AI, whist enabling specific features like translation. I felt this was a major missing use-case, so I creating a poll somewhere that is well represented by people who'd want to use such AI controls.

It's really that straight forward.

@schrottkatze I guess try the setting, and see what changes in the profile.

@mike @firefoxwebdevs This is precisely where I get confused.

The web is an enormously large sea of connected dynamic content.

Why does the interface to that sea of content need to provide AI? Shouldn't the user use the interface to -find- AI in the sea of content?

For example, instead of the browser providing translation services, people who want translation services can go to their content page of choice to obtain them.

Make "default translator" a setting and let the user choose where to get it.

People who want AI-generated slop can go to their AI-generating slop provider of choice.

Why is it necessary to put it in the interface instead of leaving it in the sea?

This feels like Netscape Navigator "we must have an integrated email client" all over again.

@davidgerard @jaffathecake @duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs Oh, I see: "Developer relations lead" at Mozilla (and previously "developer advocate" at Google). No wonder he's putting "developer of sorts" in all his profiles/blurbs/blogs.

@giacomo I'll ask about the download location & update checking. I don't know off the top of my head.

But needless to say this is more privacy preserving than browsers that perform translation by sending the text off-device.