@ArneBab people indicated pretty strongly that they wanted a way to block AI, but re-enable particular features https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115849251057488746.

It used to be referred to as a 'kill switch', which is much stronger wording, and a lot of folks wanted that wording (see the replies https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782). But I think "block" is a reasonable middle ground. I understand that you don't.

@firefoxwebdevs @sarah the fact that this is the best you can do with a technology designed from the ground up to ignore/bypass consent, is exactly what's pissing everyone off.

The very fact that this technology is being implemented directly into the browser telegraphs the intention to not keep that promise.

@ArneBab @vex @dveditz I found our discussion here reasonable, fwiw. I appreciated your viewpoints here, even if I didn't agree with all of them.

@vex @sarah is there a particular AI feature/flow that you feel bypasses consent?

Models are downloaded after the user indicates they want the feature.

@firefoxwebdevs Sounds great. Fuck your browser.

@firefoxwebdevs
Better late than even later… thank you!

@wojtek
Because optIn is better than optOut.

@fabio @firefoxwebdevs

@firefoxwebdevs YES! Thank you.

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz as a former developer myself (10 years), I understand where you're coming from. Were this a normal unpopular feature, I'd agree.

But "AI" is designed to break consent from the ground up. It cannot function without theft, & there's no ambiguity around the harm of such an integration, both now & in the future.

The logical conclusion of inviting a digital bandit to the entrance of the Internet is the control of information by those who own the bandit. It has no place in a supposedly privacy-focused browser. & It's right & correct & moral to yell & gang up on anyone trying to invite the bandit to permanently gatekeep a popular entrance to the internet. Especially when the person inviting isn't naive about the consequences & is gaslighting about the what why & how.

@ambiguous_yelp @firefoxwebdevs I was convinced the damage is irreparable. Wasn't everything just deleted?

also, several people in the replies here point out that firefox questions the users choice after they already toggled the kill switch. im normally fine with software giving me a warning if it could potentially mitigate unintended consequences, particularly when it comes to security and/or privacy. in this case, a warning message would be more appropriate if you turned AI features ON, not OFF. i think thats why the demo video especially irks me

@vex AI built on free culture content and staying true to its licenses (including attribution) is not theft.

Wikipedia is explicitly licensed to allow derivative content -- if it’s under cc by-sa, too. The same goes for almost everything I create outside my job.

Project Gutenberg provides many books that are in the public domain. Training a model on these is unproblematic.

Mozilla voice gathered voice data provided by volunteers with full consent.

@firefoxwebdevs @dveditz

@firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social Well, it should have been there first and disabled by default, but at least it’s here now. Cool.

@nieuemma idk but I'm never going to let them forget it, maybe they'll make a statement that its impossible

@vex And no, I’m not using AI.

But:
https://xkcd.com/386/
@firefoxwebdevs @dveditz

@firefoxwebdevs @alternativeto Nope, thanks.

@ArneBab @vex @dveditz haha yeah it's 22:30 here. Sigh.

@iam @alternativeto That's the thing about choice, 'nope' is an option.

@vex AI is a tool.

Most AI is trained on all the internet without consent.

But if people restrict the training set to data they have freely given consent for, then it’s morally and legally sound.

@firefoxwebdevs @dveditz

@firefoxwebdevs 23:31 here … @vex @dveditz