@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz I haven't given up hope that a better world is possible. I just don't see anything that exists making changes towards a better world as effectively as the changes being made for a worse world. But I'm still working towards a solution.

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz

If you're gonna finagle the context then of course you can paint a more hopeful picture. We're of different minds & I won't change yours, but I also can't seem to help but respond since this is a topic I feel so strongly about. So I'm gonna do my best to paint the picture outright & mute the thread for my sanity.

1. We're less than a decade away before the damage to the climate is irreversible.
2. Mastodon has 5% of total twitter users after a decade.
3. Chrome, Safari, Edge, & Firefox make up 93% of all web traffic.
4. The US is already a fascist country, & countries don't revert after manufacturing consent to elect a fascist. Never in the history of ever; only violence changes this.
5. The right wing Nazification pipelines silicon valley made are highly effective at manufacturing said consent.
6. The US is pushing other nations to the right, & doing so effectively (see: brexit, age verification, chat control, etc).
7. The only thing the majority implementation of AI does effectively is destabilization. Examples: poisoning the information well with disinformation, using up freshwater resources & electricity at the rate of entire countries (so far), validating delusions for those believing AI is actually "thinking".
8. The stat of Nazi regimes lasting 30-50 years on average is based on much less advanced tools of population control.
9. Humanity cannot survive 50+ years of fascism due to the environmental damage alone.
10. Fascism benefits from catastrophe because enough pain & people *want* to be deluded, just to mentally escape from it.

There's not nearly enough power nor force nor scale in what already exists to push back against this. I'm not gonna call it an outright inevitability, but if nothing changes it will be.

@dveditz @ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs here is why I think they are:

1. Silicon valley/"big tech" pushed for fascism in politics.
2. If AI is placed at every major access point to the internet, it'll create an unprecedented amount of control over information, monopolized by its owners.
3. If AI is placed around point-of-sale access, it'll create an unprecedented amount of control over who can buy what & at what price. Even without, but especially if digital currencies become the standard.
4. The combination of 2 & 3 will allow for unprecedented population control, literally allowing those at the wheel to deny essential goods & services to the noncompliant, while rewarding compliance.
5. Fascism's wet dream is 4. Fully automated domination.

Even though you work at Mozilla, I don't expect leadership to be forthright about such a thing. I mistrust AI itself so much that I presume anyone defending it to be either a liar, or naive about how colonialism functions (& its connection to AI).

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz compare the number of users in mastodon vs twitter & you'll see how effective hoping people will use a safer alternative is. Mark my words, we're witnessing the conquering of the Internet itself. Or at least the attempt to do so.

But it appears this is where we'll agree to disagree.

@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz please don't neglect to take into account the context of these companies existing under fascism, since that context is essential. Control over information to the degree that browser integrations of AI can manage isn't something that fascism won't take advantage of. & We can already see the effects this has in media to know where this is headed.

@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.

@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 @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.

@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.

@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 @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.

@falseknees this comic made me forget how to say February lol