Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@flxtr @firefoxwebdevs as someone who used these in the early 2000s: no, it's not. It's not as good as DeepL, but it's worlds ahead of machine translation in the 2000s.
-
@joepie91 yeah, I agree with all that, but even tech folks are asking for a way to 'get rid of AI'. I'm pretty certain if we tried to redefine what they're asking for, it would be received poorly.
@firefoxwebdevs @joepie91 i'm a "tech folk". Just give us a version of firefox with zero AI. Translation can either be an extension or not there. We ask of you to supply a base for broSing the web, the rest is what the community delivers.
We won't ask you to integrate ad blockers, but we have them.
We won't ask you to integrate quick procy switchers, but we have them.Stop the feature creep and go back to the roots, make a very good browser with extension support and let people make the rest.
-
@angelfeast @twifkak No, I don't think so. It says this (with a takedown compliance process posted afterward)...
License
These data are released under this licensing scheme: PD
We do not own any of the text from which these data has been extracted.
We license the actual packaging of these parallel data under the Creative Commons CC0 license ("no rights reserved"). -
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs you came up with the "killswitch" as if it was opt-in (it's *clearly* opt-out!), you put translate and llm-stuff into one box, *you* are the ones engaging in worst faith. why don't you go ahead and ask us why we're punching ourselves?
-
@wes @firefoxwebdevs Sure. But can we agree that it does not represent a core functionality of a web browser?
Like "this meeting could've been an email," but "this feature could've been an add-on."
A web browser should load web pages, allow you to interact with them, and offer add-on support for functionality that doesn't match the definition of "web browser." It's all pretty straight-forward if you're not a marketer, whose brains are all broken.
@liquor_american @wes @firefoxwebdevs This is super reductive. There is not some canonical definition of "web browser".
-
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs OK, now make the same argument for the spell-checker, sync, and the set of CAs, etc. etc. supplied with the browser. Its as if y'all were trained by Microsoft PR to take the arguments Mozilla used against tying IE to Windows and extend them ad-absurd-um to features in Mozilla's own browser ("just turn it around back in their faces" said the Armani suit).
Meanwhile, Red Hat is quietly undermining any legal basis for copyleft and leaning into the idea that gratis products (Fedora) shouldn't have robust & transparent system update tools. Oh and the umpteen other for-profit controlled (opposite of Mozilla) FOSS projects that get plugged in these spaces pretty much constantly. Linux Foundation being controlled by Microsoft and Google...? crickets chirping.
This is what makes me tired of IT and geek culture. Its become like everything else, just kneejerk crap with zero reflection and sense of proportion. As I hinted above, it morphs into this shadow of corporate PR. Consider, if people spent their time criticizing actual badness in Firefox, like ad tracking and DoH, that would be inconvenient for certain interests from Brave on up to Apple and Google. I think the style and quality of venting we usually see about Mozilla serves those interests, much of it probably fed by sock puppets.
"Meanwhile, Red Hat is quietly undermining any legal basis for copyleft and leaning into the idea that gratis products (Fedora) shouldn't have robust & transparent system update tools."
it's a bit off topic, but would you mind elaborating more about the system update tools? i'm out of the loop on that, and it sounds concerning
-
@firefoxwebdevs you came up with the "killswitch" as if it was opt-in (it's *clearly* opt-out!), you put translate and llm-stuff into one box, *you* are the ones engaging in worst faith. why don't you go ahead and ask us why we're punching ourselves?
@malte there will be granular options for this stuff. The question is about the non-granular "kill switch".
-
@firefoxwebdevs come on man.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
I chose “No”. I find the translation feature very useful and greatly appreciate that is is local.
I do however think the local translate functionality should have an enable/disable switch right next to the AI enable/disable switch along with a brief and expanded description of functionality and locality of the feature.
-
@joepie91 I think a lot of people in the replies would consider this sneaky. It's a tricky UX problem. But yes, granular control needs to be part of the solution, along with a kill switch.
-
@malte there will be granular options for this stuff. The question is about the non-granular "kill switch".
@firefoxwebdevs you can't cherry-pick yourself out of your general bad faith engagement.
-
@m I agree the folks I'm polling here do not represent the average user, but in this case I'm specifically interested in the thoughts of those who really dislike 'AI', and I think I've reached them
-
@liquor_american @wes @firefoxwebdevs This is super reductive. There is not some canonical definition of "web browser".
@tedmielczarek @wes @firefoxwebdevs Yes, this is what the marketers keep trying to convince us of.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs As worded, and if we can trust Mozilla, then the acceptable answer should be No for these reasons: ML is not AI, and on-device means nothing is sent out of the device. In exchange you get free translation. Win.
BUT… there’s the trust issue now.
And what we REALLY need is not an AI kill switch but more of a “data transfer/phone-home kill switch”, almost like a firewall, where we know the browser is not taking any data and sending it to a device we don’t control ourselves.
-
@made @firefoxwebdevs There's already lots of work for on-device ML: https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/search?q=toolkit%2Fcomponents%2Fml
Integrating models into a finalized product with the wide spectrum of end-user devices is tricky though, so it has to be done with care.
@gregtatum @firefoxwebdevs great to hear! I can imagine! Thanks for the link
️ -
@firefoxwebdevs As worded, and if we can trust Mozilla, then the acceptable answer should be No for these reasons: ML is not AI, and on-device means nothing is sent out of the device. In exchange you get free translation. Win.
BUT… there’s the trust issue now.
And what we REALLY need is not an AI kill switch but more of a “data transfer/phone-home kill switch”, almost like a firewall, where we know the browser is not taking any data and sending it to a device we don’t control ourselves.
@mdavis folks want to disable 'AI' for more reasons than privacy. Privacy is important of course, but folks are also concerned about the training data, and energy used for the training.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs tbh, the open embracement of AI, the addition of AI into the browser, while full well knowing your user base is well known for being anti big tech and privacy focused, was a mask-off moment.
I've already switched to librewolf, and I didn't have to disable/remove bullshit.
I recommend your ELT 1) get a grip and 2) remember you exist because of your userbase, not to please tech giants. If big tech had their way, they'd eat you alive. people who want AI slop aren't using Firefox.
-
@eckes for that usage pattern the results would probably be even worse with more fabrications. So what are we even doing here?
-
@zzt I posted this poll after a meeting where we discussed the design of the kill switch, and there was uncertainty around translations. I want to make sure the community's voice is represented in these discussions.
@firefoxwebdevs @zzt How about making a poll "Should Firefox include AI/LLM by default?"
-
@firefoxwebdevs That's exactly the motivation behind my suggestion, though - I've attached a mockup in an additional reply to hopefully make it clearer, but the idea here is to not redefine it so much as it is to explicitly pick a definition, and then provide an additional option for the broader definition, so that a user can essentially pick whichever definition they are following without getting into the technical weeds too much.
@joepie91 agreed.
@firefoxwebdevs we're not in those meetings so we don't know what all is actually included within the AI module suite, or even if that has been fully defined internally at this point, so of course there won't be a clean consensus externally from us on what "it" is and if it should be included or excluded, as it's up to our interpretation.
