Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.

@gatesvp @davidgerard

Why is Firefox even running this survey?

Because the people in charge genuinely believe that AI slop is The Future and believe that, in order to stay relevant, Firefox must become an AI Browser.

But somehow users inexplicably dislike AI slop?! How can this be?!

Embedding AI slop in Firefox as deeply and pervasively as possible is thus a critical goal. But this risks reputational damage with its actual users! To mitigate the risk, bundle features that were not controversial into the discussion of the controversial features; this serves to average the controversy across the (previously uncontroversial, existing) translation feature and highly controversial new slop features, hopefully reducing it below an ignorable threshold.

@firefoxwebdevs But wait… what if the developers used AI to help develop the code in the browser itself? Does that mean AI kill switch purists should then rather not even use the product at all?

@mdavis @firefoxwebdevs

The Firefox AI "kill switch" is not "complicated" except insofar as it's incoherent. it's not "undisclosed nuance" except insofar as it's incoherent.

the "kill switch" doesn't exist.

this is important to keep in mind. once you remember that NONE OF THIS EXISTS, you will realise that every one of the dilemmas you posit is an imaginary problem that follows from incoherent postulates.

e.g. "AI kill switch purists" is not a coherent postulation because the "kill switch" does not exist.

the "kill switch" is a hypothetical proposed in this post:

https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782

the "kill switch" is a proposal to satisfy the demand for an opt-in by providing an opt-out. you might think that's a failure to respect the question, and you might even begin to suspect the proposal was in bad faith.

note that Jake, in presenting the kill switch and calling it a kill switch and getting it into all the papers as a kill switch, says he's uncomfortable with the name he's publicised it as. you might think that's oddly incompetent for literally a PR (devrel) person.

the concept as presented imposes multiple false dilemmas.

the LLM stuff should *incredibly obviously* be an extension. this is the purest possible opt-in, despite jake's past attempts to muddy the meaning of "opt-in".

making it an extension is also eminently feasible. There is literally no technical reason it needs to be a browser built-in.

this suggests the reasons are not in any way technical. some person with a name, who has yet to be named, dictated that it would be a built-in. so that's what Mozilla is going with.

why Mozilla went hard AI is entirely unclear. this would have been late 2024? we have no idea who was inspired with this bad idea nor why they were so incredibly keen to force it into the browser.

nor is it clear what Mozilla will do for external LLM services when the AI bubble runs out of venture capital and pops in a year or so, most of the chatbot APIs shut down and whatever remains is 10x the cost at least. but that's a problem for 2027's bonus, not 2026's.

note how the poll provides no option for "no LLM functions built-in to Firefox", in a pathetically transparent attempt to synthesize consent. jake wants to use this poll as evidence of what the user base wants, deliberately leaving out the option he knows directly a lot of them want.

and in conclusion:

1. solve the "kill switch" naming problem by branding it the "brutal and bloody robot murder switch with an option on the executives responsible".
2. make all this shit an extension like they should have a year ago.
3. and your little translator too.

@dante seems like a valid question to me. I mean it's literally a different tool than prompted genAI, and the definition of "AI" keeps shifting.

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?

@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs

In my admittedly limited experience with exceptionally dubious features that the users don't want, but the executives do, it's also not truly an 'AI kill switch' until it also fires the people responsible for putting 'AI' into the thing in the first place.

@theogrin @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs that's the other missing poll option, yes

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?

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?

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?

@davidgerard @theogrin @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs "No AI, and Anthony Enzor-DeMeo resigns in disgrace."

@theorangetheme @theogrin @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs also the new AI CMO. also whichever person started this ball rolling and got Anthony in.

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?

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?

@mdavis @firefoxwebdevs

The Firefox AI "kill switch" is not "complicated" except insofar as it's incoherent. it's not "undisclosed nuance" except insofar as it's incoherent.

the "kill switch" doesn't exist.

this is important to keep in mind. once you remember that NONE OF THIS EXISTS, you will realise that every one of the dilemmas you posit is an imaginary problem that follows from incoherent postulates.

e.g. "AI kill switch purists" is not a coherent postulation because the "kill switch" does not exist.

the "kill switch" is a hypothetical proposed in this post:

https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782

the "kill switch" is a proposal to satisfy the demand for an opt-in by providing an opt-out. you might think that's a failure to respect the question, and you might even begin to suspect the proposal was in bad faith.

note that Jake, in presenting the kill switch and calling it a kill switch and getting it into all the papers as a kill switch, says he's uncomfortable with the name he's publicised it as. you might think that's oddly incompetent for literally a PR (devrel) person.

the concept as presented imposes multiple false dilemmas.

the LLM stuff should *incredibly obviously* be an extension. this is the purest possible opt-in, despite jake's past attempts to muddy the meaning of "opt-in".

making it an extension is also eminently feasible. There is literally no technical reason it needs to be a browser built-in.

this suggests the reasons are not in any way technical. some person with a name, who has yet to be named, dictated that it would be a built-in. so that's what Mozilla is going with.

why Mozilla went hard AI is entirely unclear. this would have been late 2024? we have no idea who was inspired with this bad idea nor why they were so incredibly keen to force it into the browser.

nor is it clear what Mozilla will do for external LLM services when the AI bubble runs out of venture capital and pops in a year or so, most of the chatbot APIs shut down and whatever remains is 10x the cost at least. but that's a problem for 2027's bonus, not 2026's.

note how the poll provides no option for "no LLM functions built-in to Firefox", in a pathetically transparent attempt to synthesize consent. jake wants to use this poll as evidence of what the user base wants, deliberately leaving out the option he knows directly a lot of them want.

and in conclusion:

1. solve the "kill switch" naming problem by branding it the "brutal and bloody robot murder switch with an option on the executives responsible".
2. make all this shit an extension like they should have a year ago.
3. and your little translator too.

@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.

@firefoxwebdevs then I think it comes down to- is translation specifically considered "AI" by your own definition (not personally your definition, how it is treated internally by Mozilla)?

If it is treated and handled as "AI" then yes, following the idea of including what is defined by Mozilla as "AI" into the "AI kill switch" it should be disabled when the "kill switch" is toggled.

@joepie91

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?

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?

@chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91 I’m kindof amazed that Mozilla can’t distinguish which changes led to the backlash. I think that’s why this whole thing feels more like putting on a show than like a genuine attempt at reform.

The timing alone makes it clear that the builtin translation was not the issue. Sure, moving it to a plugin would be an improvement, and requiring user action to enable it would be smaller improvement, but that was the case before.
️