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

@firefoxwebdevs @alternativeto No, the choice is to use something else that doesn't have AI (which nobody asked for), and which should be disabled by default, not enabled. Read the room.

@ArneBab @vex @dveditz now you're just trying to make me feel better

@firefoxwebdevs @sarah even this response evades the point being made. I'm not asking nor talking about particular features. This doesn't seem like a conversation being had in good faith. Of course when AI is being implemented in a space conscious of its harms, it will come in with claws retracted.

But one needs only to look at how AI has been implemented aggressively in spaces where this isn't the case to see the inevitable harm to come. Grok from how it creates CSAM & non-consent porn from user images. Grok again from how it purposefully hides information & replaces it with lies. Claude with how it made all user files vulnerable to exposure via mere prompt injection.

This isn't some harmless technology just because LLMs have some legitimate uses, such as translation. The scale of investment in AI isn't one that the legitimate use cases could ever return a profit.

Right now it's being added to the browser against user wishes. Later it'll be expanded against user wishes. Gradually, to prevent the discomfort from losing too many users. But the end goal is transparently for there to be a gatekeeper for the entire Internet, able to transform what people see specifically based on what they believe, derived from their browsing habits.

& Yes Firefox isn't the entire Internet, but it is a popular enough entrance. And with chrome definitely going down such a path, & Google likely funding the current efforts for Firefox to do so as well, the intent is clear.

@firefoxwebdevs

(no, but I really need to take up the juggling balls and get some movement before I go to bed)
@vex @dveditz

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz a wolf doesn't hide amongst sheep with its claws & fangs out.

LLMs have legitimate use cases, yes. AI is an intentionally misleading label over LLMs & tend to include the less legitimate (to put it mildly) use cases. Which telegraphs intent.

Google funds something like 90% of Mozilla. There's 0 chance they're not pushing Mozilla in this direction.

@firefoxwebdevs Why isn't it enabled by default?

@firefoxwebdevs @sarah maybe start by talking to your CEO:

> Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/leadership/mozillas-next-chapter-anthony-enzor-demeo-new-ceo/

This vision is a huge reason why people are not convinced. That, and how getting Firefox to implement these controls at long last felt like pulling teeth.

@vex Mozilla has been filling up a war chest for the past years.

They can survive some years without Google.

And you say AI when you want to be understood by non-devs.

That’s not to say that you’re wrong. Just that I don’t consider your conclusion the only plausible one.
@firefoxwebdevs @dveditz

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz of course it's not the only plausible outcome. "Claws retracted". But can legitimate use cases ever claw back the scale of investment in AI & turn a profit? No.

Will they stop taking Google's money? Unlikely.

Will they continue to force in the features Google says they must to continue being funded? Likely.

Will the company that dropped "Don't be evil" from their values not do evil? Unlikely.

@firefoxwebdevs This is so sad to watch.

Y'all need to pause and reflect on *why* the vast majority of your loyal user base wants nothing to do with your AI slop "features."

It's bad business. If you have to develop a kill switch for a whole class of feature because it's so toxic, maybe the need for a kill switch isn't the actual issue. Yeah?

Come on, we all know you're not this oblivious. Stop lying to yourselves and us.