AI Controls (formerly 'kill switch') are landing in today's Firefox Nightly, and will land with Firefox 148 later this month.
-
> are you under a directive that explicitly told you not to do that?
No.
> Or perhaps under some implicit kind of situation (e.g. “I know $manager won’t listen”) which made you not even consider that?
No, but a poll that gives me the evidence to say "hey, you know that place that has a strong representation of people who don't like AI? They don't like AI." did not seem like a good use of my time.
@jaffathecake @barubary okay so if the (for lack of a better term) problem is that gathering data from the fedi might be biased, what about shipping a survey and linking it in update notes?
Firefox 148, pop it into the release notes. "hey, we've done this update. also, we want to know whether you want us to work on this stuff". you'll get answers from a fairly solid bit of your userbase. it'd be quite interesting to see those numbers, don't you think?
-
@jaffathecake @barubary If the "untrue accusation" you're referring to is the (within quote-marks, but not a quite, instead a restating and possible hyperbole of your position) "anti-AI crazies", then you most definitely need to take a (virtual step back) and consider that it most probably was not ever intended to be a quote, @duke_of_germany can probably confirm, but having spent a fair while reading text written by human beings, I read the quote marks as indicating not a quote, but a somewhat hyperbolic summary.
Without the quotes, I probably would have interpreted it as an actual quote.
@vatine @barubary @duke_of_germany even ignoring the quotes…
> Stop portraying Mastodon users as the anti-AI crazies.
Is pretty clearly accusing me of portraying people as anti-AI crazies. This is untrue, and feels like a deliberate attempt to put words in my mouth.
-
@jaffathecake @barubary okay so if the (for lack of a better term) problem is that gathering data from the fedi might be biased, what about shipping a survey and linking it in update notes?
Firefox 148, pop it into the release notes. "hey, we've done this update. also, we want to know whether you want us to work on this stuff". you'll get answers from a fairly solid bit of your userbase. it'd be quite interesting to see those numbers, don't you think?
@froztbyte @barubary user research has been carried out, so repeating it doesn't seem necessary at this stage. I've been asking if there are details I can share publicly, but I haven't heard back.
-
@vatine @barubary @duke_of_germany even ignoring the quotes…
> Stop portraying Mastodon users as the anti-AI crazies.
Is pretty clearly accusing me of portraying people as anti-AI crazies. This is untrue, and feels like a deliberate attempt to put words in my mouth.
@jaffathecake @barubary @duke_of_germany
I will posit that 'anti-AI crazies' is a succinct (and slightly exaggerated) summary of (and this is a direct quote) "I'm sure you're aware that Mastodon has a high representation of folks who don't like AI, so presenting evidence that Mastodon users don't like AI is kinda… well… not really useful."
Just... not so wordy.
So, if that is indeed what you are referring to, again, please take a few virtual steps back, take a deep breath, and consider that maybe, just maybe, you overreacted.
-
@barubary it was a reply to this post https://mastodon.social/@jaffathecake/116006262879508507. It seems reasonable to assume that this is what you were referring to by "this". But if you're saying otherwise, okay.
@jaffathecake No.
"This is disgusting" were only the first three words of my reply. You can't just ignore the other 96% of the message that explain what exactly it is I found disgusting and decide it is "reasonable to assume" whatever.
Also: That post is not you "challenging someone on sneaking untrue accusations into their longer posts". Which is another thing I mentioned in my first reply. And which you ignored (again).
-
@jaffathecake @barubary @duke_of_germany
I will posit that 'anti-AI crazies' is a succinct (and slightly exaggerated) summary of (and this is a direct quote) "I'm sure you're aware that Mastodon has a high representation of folks who don't like AI, so presenting evidence that Mastodon users don't like AI is kinda… well… not really useful."
Just... not so wordy.
So, if that is indeed what you are referring to, again, please take a few virtual steps back, take a deep breath, and consider that maybe, just maybe, you overreacted.
@vatine @barubary @duke_of_germany if you feel that way, let me be clear: I do not think people who dislike AI are crazy.
If I did, I'm not sure why I'd go to this extent to gather and represent their views in order to change direction of a particular feature.
I don't think it's unreasonable to object to the accusation that I think people are "crazy" - that's a pretty strong word, and not one I want people to put in my mouth.
I hear that you feel that's an overreaction. I simply disagree.
-
@davidgerard @jaffathecake @duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs Oh, I see: "Developer relations lead" at Mozilla (and previously "developer advocate" at Google). No wonder he's putting "developer of sorts" in all his profiles/blurbs/blogs.
@barubary @davidgerard @jaffathecake @duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs You could always report the user as a persistent troll misrepresenting who they are.
-
@mike @firefoxwebdevs Preference falsification, it's seen as socially condemnable to be ok with AI, especially in the circles that Mozilla frequents, so I'm not surprised public comments trend negative. Given they've sent an anonymous survey out, I'm pretty sure the balance is split between the no-AI and AI everything camps.
I don't get the vitriol towards Mozilla, at least not for this change, they literally show you how to turn off their AI features
@budududuroiu @mike @firefoxwebdevs It's not about being able to turn off the features. It's about having to download and store them and give implicit permission to have them on your computer in the first place.
It's like someone saying "Hey, I mailed you that stack of books you want, but people told us they wanted more pictures so we made illegal copies of artworks and bound them in. The art pages come with preset double-sided tape on them so it's easy for you to stick the art pages together and not see them if you don't want. No harm, no foul, right?"
The harm isn't in the viewing (or not viewing), it's in the implied consent to the unethical behavior that made the viewing possible, and in asking customers to fix it after the fact.
-
@froztbyte @barubary user research has been carried out, so repeating it doesn't seem necessary at this stage. I've been asking if there are details I can share publicly, but I haven't heard back.
@jaffathecake @barubary just to clarify, with "user research" do you mean the polls on bsky/fedi/etc, or were there other surveys conducted in places?
(asking because I don't think I saw any such surveys anywhere, and I'm _moderately_ on top of seeing this stuff go around)
-
@jaffathecake @barubary just to clarify, with "user research" do you mean the polls on bsky/fedi/etc, or were there other surveys conducted in places?
(asking because I don't think I saw any such surveys anywhere, and I'm _moderately_ on top of seeing this stuff go around)
@froztbyte I don't believe they were social media surveys, as the goal was to get a representative sample among locations and types of user. But it isn't information I currently have, and maybe won't be able to share.
-
@budududuroiu @mike @firefoxwebdevs It's not about being able to turn off the features. It's about having to download and store them and give implicit permission to have them on your computer in the first place.
It's like someone saying "Hey, I mailed you that stack of books you want, but people told us they wanted more pictures so we made illegal copies of artworks and bound them in. The art pages come with preset double-sided tape on them so it's easy for you to stick the art pages together and not see them if you don't want. No harm, no foul, right?"
The harm isn't in the viewing (or not viewing), it's in the implied consent to the unethical behavior that made the viewing possible, and in asking customers to fix it after the fact.
-
@froztbyte I don't believe they were social media surveys, as the goal was to get a representative sample among locations and types of user. But it isn't information I currently have, and maybe won't be able to share.
@jaffathecake if it's not information you currently have, doesn't that leave the possibility that they might in fact reflect a negative or inconclusive outcome in polling?
I mean, I get that you don't have eyes on this yourself and that you can't speak to it, I'm not putting this on *you*. but do you see how it could be possible that, without these results being open, someone could be going full steam ahead _in spite_ of the findings?
-
@firefoxwebdevs @robotistry @budududuroiu TBF, client-side translation is pretty cool, and generally better than sending the text to Google or similar.
-
@alextecplayz here's the help page, so you can judge for yourself https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-ai-controls. We mostly refrain from using the term "opt-in" because people have different definitions of opt-in.
Models don't download until you engage with the feature, but some folks have said it's only opt-in if even the entry points are in a separate binary.
I asked for UI that shows downloaded models, but there wasn't time for that in 148. I'll keep asking for it
@firefoxwebdevs @alextecplayz For the time being, you can see those models in about:addons, under the “On-device AI” page, and there will be a “Firefox uses this to sugest tabs” description, like this.
-
@jaffathecake if it's not information you currently have, doesn't that leave the possibility that they might in fact reflect a negative or inconclusive outcome in polling?
I mean, I get that you don't have eyes on this yourself and that you can't speak to it, I'm not putting this on *you*. but do you see how it could be possible that, without these results being open, someone could be going full steam ahead _in spite_ of the findings?
@froztbyte I suppose that's literally true. But, I also think a mountain is made out of the molehill that is AI in Firefox. The vast majority of the dev time is on other things.
To be clear, I'm not someone who has personally found AI generally useful in browsers (aside from a couple of one-off automations), but my feelings aren't strong enough to deny those features to others.
-
@jaffathecake @duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs fabulous attempt at DARVO in corporate comms Jake, well done
@jaffathecake @duke_of_germany @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard forget AI, at this point Jake is putting me off Firefox
-
Stop portraying Mastodon users as the "anti-AI crazies".
Instead, ask yourself: "What is the relation between Mastodon users & Firefox?"
The answer:
An overwhelming number of Mastodon users used to be your champions.
They are tech people who used to recommend Firefox to the normies in their life. A crowd of mini-influencers, recommending your product.
And I don't understand why you go out of your way to alienate exactly these people.
@duke_of_germany @jonny @jaffathecake @firefoxwebdevs @davidgerard since 20 years ago I've been switching my friends, family, and coworkers and classmates to firefox. Its depressing, but I no longer recommend firefox. Let's ditch the AI please.
-
@paul well, if we created binaries for all combinations of the current 5 features, that would be 32x-ing the number of binaries per build. And I think people would still be unhappy depending on which was seen as the default.
The AI Controls give an easy way to have that granular control, and you don't need to switch binary just to try a feature.
-
@paul well, if we created binaries for all combinations of the current 5 features, that would be 32x-ing the number of binaries per build. And I think people would still be unhappy depending on which was seen as the default.
The AI Controls give an easy way to have that granular control, and you don't need to switch binary just to try a feature.
Blink twice if you need help.
I don't feel you've really understood how we feel. But yes, some people may still be unhappy with the perceived default, but less people than right now. So long as we can have a browser than doesn't have the AI slop in it, most of us will be happy enough... though for some it is already too late and you're losing users who actually care.
Sure, we'll still be annoyed that Mozilla is piling its efforts into AI - but that's not going to change until it stops.32x more builds doesn't seem to much of an issue, I come from a time when that was normal. Especially if you start to get data back that shows these non-AI builds are actually quite popular.
But, I was only trying to give a fair opinion - I personally would prefer no AI at all, but I felt my first comment was fair to all sides. If you wish to stay on the "EAT THE AI, USER!!!" path then that's on you and I wish you well. Chase the "don't care" market, that'll do great I'm sure.
-
@froztbyte I suppose that's literally true. But, I also think a mountain is made out of the molehill that is AI in Firefox. The vast majority of the dev time is on other things.
To be clear, I'm not someone who has personally found AI generally useful in browsers (aside from a couple of one-off automations), but my feelings aren't strong enough to deny those features to others.
@jaffathecake @froztbyte
To be clear. Making commercial chatbots available as first class citizen of the browser knowing their baggage in terms of ecological and social destruction is OK with you ?
Making non-authored, non-reviewed translations/summaries available as a first-class citizen of the browser doesn't even light an ethical warning ?These could be available to users *who want them* without being promoted on the level of a standard experience of the web browser, who's denied anything?
