- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
After the controversial news shared earlier this week by Mozilla’s new CEO that Firefox will evolve into “a modern AI browser,” the company now revealed it is working on an AI kill switch for the open-source web browser.
On Tuesday, Anthony Enzor-DeMeo was named the new CEO of Mozilla Corporation, the company behind the beloved Firefox web browser used by almost all GNU/Linux distributions as the default browser.
In his message as new CEO, Anthony Enzor-DeMeo stated that Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software while remaining the company’s anchor, and that Firefox will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.
What was not made clear is that Firefox will also ship with an AI kill switch that will let users completely disable all the AI features that are included in Firefox. Mozilla shared this important update earlier today to make it clear to everyone that Firefox will still be a trusted web browser.
You must log in or # to comment.
Why not just ship it without any of the AI stuff and give users the option to install and use it instead of bloating the application? This also confirms that the stuff is essentially OPT OUT instead of OPT IN
The bubble is AI and they want some of that bubble investor money is my guess, so they put optional AI
“On by default unless you run down a setting buried in a menu” is the thinnest type of optional in computing.
the actual thinnest is only having a choice between “yes” and “later”
Have you attempted to turn of AI in Firefox? It’s literally like two checkboxes and it’s off
that’s not about just me. defaults matter a lot.
let’s see what they implement though, their translation engine is nice so far, tbf.
That’s fair, but also if you search AI in the settings it shows you all the options
It’s like saying cosmic is optional on Pop_OS.
Sure, you can rip it out if you really try… but is it really optional?
Have you attempted to turn of AI in Firefox? It’s literally like two checkboxes and it’s off
Flip the script man.
Imagine if enabling AI was like two check boxes and it’s on, for those people who really want it.
Sounds great.
I mean yeah that would be better, I’m not disagreeing
In their defense a very tiny percentage of users even open options and of those an even smaller actually change stuff.
Maybe slighlty different for Firefox as probably more power user use it than other random programs. But basically if something is not enabled by default, it doesn’t exist.
Because they’re counting on people who know nothing about technology using the AI stuff when it’s placed in front of them.
All AI features will also be opt-in. I think there are some grey areas in what ‘opt-in’ means to different people (e.g. is a new toolbar button opt-in?), but the kill switch will absolutely remove all that stuff, and never show it in future. That’s unambiguous.
Sounds like they will be opt in, not opt out
No, go deeper into that mastodon thread.
The dev has a really hinky defention of “opt-in” thats basically “yes we push all this on by default and realize it will be the norm for most of our users because of that, but you technically dont have to interact with it so thats opt-in.”
Somehow, eventually having a buried menu option that “opts out” of AI is also part of how it will be opt-in as well? Its a self serving mess of rationaliztions and doublethink, no matter the claim on the tin.
I mean yeah, that’s a fair point, and the dev said that themselves, that the definition of opt in is ambiguous. The definition they seem to use is that AI won’t run unless you explicitly tell it to, and I think that’s ok. There’ll be a button that you can press to do some AI action and you can hide it using the kill switch.
I do hope the kill switch isn’t hidden behind 5 layers of menus
Thats not ambuguity. AI will be opt out in firefox, which is them abandoning core principles like user choice and privacy.
They can do that, but playing like they aren’t by redefining well established terms in UI/UX is disengenious, and cuts right through the “we will earn your trust back” messaging made by the same dev.
I think it’s quite clear there’s ambiguity (hence this discussion). How would you define opt in? Should a user not even see the button for an opt in feature?
Nah, I think it should be optional. Some AI features may even be useful — like an AI script to get rid of AI slop or something, idk.
I think the big defining question is what will the AI features that they will implement do exactly and how will they run. If it’s something that runs in the background (even as unintrusive as the summaries on a search engine like DDG), then it’s opt out by default as it’s constantly running whether you want it to or not. If it specifically and exclusively runs when you hit the button to activate it and doesn’t run at any other time, then I’d say it’s unequivocally opt in. And regardless of what a company says that their software will do, at this point I won’t believe it until somebody has done a full teardown and discerned what exactly it does behind the scenes. I’ve seen enough nonsense like the Epic Games Store accessing your browser history and recording keyboard inputs or whatever the other absurd incident was.
In my opinion there is no ambiguity at all.
Opt-in means that the feature is disabled by default and until the user enables it. This is NOT what Firefox will be doing.
Opt-out means that the feature is enabled by default and can be disabled by the user. This is what Firefox will be doing.
Whether the user actually uses or not the feature is not a factor in determining if it is opt-in or opt-out.So if you never press the AI button, it’s never enabled. It is opt-in in the strictest semantic sense.
What you say here applies for things that run automatically, like the anonymous usage reports, which is opt out, not for things you activate yourself.
A feature that will not do anything unless you explicitly press a button to start using it is quite literally opt-in, though? Opt-in doesn’t mean “I won’t even know the feature exists without hunting through the settings”. It just means that it won’t start doing things without your consent. Presenting a way to provide that consent in a more visible place than buried deeply in the settings does not make it opt-out. It might be a bit annoying to you, but it has no effect on your user choice or privacy, especially if there’s also a way to globally hide it and any other features like it, including new ones that might be added in the future.
Let’s have a look at how it works now, so we don’t need to speculate.
When I configured Firefox for AI, I got to choose my LLM of choice. I chose Claude. Now, if I select some text, I get a context menu option that says “Ask Anthropic Claude”, which branches into these options:
- Summarize
- Explain
- Quiz me
- Proofread
- Remove Anthropic Claude
Notice the last one? That’s not a “buried” option. That’s as front and center as the options to use it. Mind you, if I decide to not use it, then nothing happens. The only thing that’s changed is that I now have an optional shortcut for LLM features that open in a sidebar instead of a new tab.
Oh, the humanity.
I don’t see why there is a big outrage. Sure I’m not a fan of the AI features and I certainly will disable them but it’s tot like they’re forced upon me. Some people like (want) AI in the browser and good for them, this makes the browser better and easier to use for them. For me, it doesn’t change my experience at all
(Commented this separately on purpose)
Come to think of it, I do enjoy the translation feature in Firefox
The alt-text tagging is pretty amazing according to my sister (blind), too.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. The online tech community is a very small part of a much larger pie and they need to serve multiple audiences. As long as it can be turned off and truly be off, who cares?
People don’t trust that it can be truly turned off and that it won’t act maliciously in some way. That’s really the crux of the whole saga. We’re at a point where phone companies are getting survey results that say that 80% of users either don’t care about AI nor use it or find that it actively makes their user experience worse.
And also … will the kill switch turn off the AI entirely … or partially? Since the AI system is baked in, will elements of it still operate in the background even if you turn off the switch?
Not sure what you mean by “will it operate in the background”? The current (and planned) features collect no data. The “operate” when you use them. Disabling them will remove them from the UI.
lol … so they won’t change how they function … just remove them from sight
out of sight, out of mind, right?
Whenever I trust big corporations … or even big organizations with a lot of power in their hands … it’s never usually good for common people like me and you.
It’s an open source browser.
The publicly available code is the most verifiable system of trust you’ll find.
What he wrote doesn’t seem ambiguous on this at all. But we’ll see.
So you agree that it will be baked in and impossible to actually turn off. Yep.
Otherwise, they would have made it an extension, right? If it’s optional, it needs to actually be optional … that’s what am extension is. That’s the whole point of them.
You can not push the button that says AI.
You can also hit the kill switch that completely removes that button.
That’s opt-in enough.
If it starts reading pages or doing things without you pushing a button, that’s an issue.
If it starts reading pages or doing things without you pushing a button, that’s an issue.
And therein lies the rub. The question is whether or not people trust that it won’t be doing that regardless of whether or not you hit the kill switch.
No, you don’t have to trust anything. It’s open source, you can read the code.
And if you’re feeling paranoid, you can compile it yourself.
Good thing it’s open source and we’ll immediately see that they aren’t doing the thing you’re claiming.
This should just have been an extension. Having this as a core integration makes the browser have more surface area for attack.
If compromised, it won’t be an easy fix like disabling/removing an extension.
Looks like execs behind closed doors are just trying to water down the Firefox brand until it’s hollow and then jump ship.
Is there nobody with sanity left? This has blown up so much the user base clearly does not want it. Focus your efforts elsewhere. You gain marketshare by putting users first. Also fuck markets.
If all Firefox users donated to Mozilla it could work. Alas, we don’t.
I probably would, if the organizational structure and its spending focus(es) weren’t so fucked up. They have been spending insane amounts of money on bullshit like AI instead of core browser features, and their leadership has extremely high wages for something that should be a non-profit open source organization. And it has been like this for years at this point.
Well to be fair they only had that or onlyfans to get paid to sit there playing with themselves.
They’d have done less damage going for the OF option.
Their CEO makes more than I think CEOs should earn in general, but the rest of their executives earn relatively normal to low salaries for their roles and the sector.
Non-profit doesn’t mean everyone works for free.
You can donate to Mozilla, you cannot donate to Firefox.
Which is probably a good thing. I appreciate projects like Thunderbird as well.
No money you donate to Mozilla Foundation goes to either Firefox (MozCorp) or Thunderbird (MZLA).
They are separate entities.
deleted by creator
Pretty much this.
They are making market based decisions because they have to, and all the users bitching and moaning about them making financially driven decisions don’t donate anyways.
Then let’s
How? Where? I’ll donate, take my money, and ads a voting system where paying users can vote for the next features
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/ if you’re actually interested in donating.
I would donate if I ever had spare money but I never do.
$5?
Make fun of the poors yeah?
No, I just don’t believe they really can’t spare $5.
Maybe they can’t but I’m skeptical.
They? You mean me? Lmao you are replying to the same person.
A very vocal portion of the user base, but we don’t actually know what absolute portion cares. I’m personally unlikely to use possible AI features outside translation, but Mozilla has generally done enough that I don’t feel particularly worried they’re going to mess with my privacy or force me to use a feature I don’t want.
They could do a survey amongst Firefox users about what they want.
But if the result is anti-AI they can’t claim anymore that they weren’t aware of their users opinions.
The issue is that there aren’t many of us Firefox users left, so asking us while FF wants to get NEW users to expand the market share (which is badly needed, so they do not lose their seat at the table regarding web standards, and to make them less dependent on googles payments) is not helpful at all.
As long as i can switch it off with one click, i couldn’t care less and will continue using FF, but as you can see many existing users will bitch and moan even if it’s just one click.
so asking us while FF wants to get NEW users
This is a balancing act and Mozilla behaves like an elefant in a porcelain shop right now. Worst case they loose their current users without attracting new ones.
existing users will bitch and moan even if it’s just one click
I’m one of them. Why not make it one click for people who want it instead?
Worst case they loose their current users without attracting new ones.
And where to?
Ladybird, Servo and Floorp are all not useable as a daily driver and will take years to get there (and btw, the ladybird guy is a major shithead and last i heard of Servo was that they were going to cater to the embedded market, not a full blown browser).
Firefox forks can do what they want, even switch off the AI button, but i’d still say they help keeping the browser engine itself afloat, because they still depend on Firefox - there’s not one fork with enough dev staff to keep up. That leaves us with chromium based browsers and safari. I’d say the commitment to the current userbase to make the changes optional is good enough to keep most of them.
I ’m one of them. Why not make it one click for people who want it instead?
I’d put current Firefox users much more in the department of “able to find the settings” than the vast majority of users. The majority wants something that works with everything they throw at it out of the box without rummaging through settings.
And where to?
If both noteworthy browser engines are made by companies who make decisions against their user’s interest I might as well switch to the one with higher development budget.
The majority wants something that works with everything they throw at it out of the box without rummaging through settings.
And where does AI come into play here? It’s not like a browser without AI doesn’t work.
At least Firefox isn’t an extension of the worlds largest ad company, no amount of dev budget can fix that.
Context aware search, summarizing in side view or importing an agent directly from a repository into your browser are things that come to mind without much thinking, and i am not a developer.
Chill out. It’s literally just a sidebar for your LLM of choice.
Don’t like it? Don’t use it.
Don’t want it to clutter up your context menu? The same menu contains the option to disable it. Boom! Problem solved.
Gonna use Chromium-based with no µBlock because your feelings got hurt? Have fun.
We need valve but for browsers.
Funny. That’s exactly what Mozilla used to be.
Ladybird I follow since it’s an entirely new browser engine and can help restore a little democracy to the web, but why Floorp? I’m looking through its website and it seems to be a more customizable Firefox, which is nice, but doesn’t seem particularly revolutionary (and forks of Chromium/Firefox are kinda a dime a dozen).
Floorp misses the mark for me. Waterfox and librewolf seem to be a better fit for most people.
Always celebrate more options, though. I hope ladybird does well and doesn’t shit the bed the moment it gets some market share.
These days I’m tempted to just write myself a super minimal front end to Servo though because I don’t want 90% of what modern browsers ship with.
No idea why Floorp has garnered attention but other seem interested.
Ehh, I’d pass on Ladybird. I’ve been donating to Servo myself.
It seems to me that the issue is how we consume the web versus games: We’re used to pay to play but not to browse the internet. Valve is able to make money without relying on affiliations or donations.
Getting stuck on Lemmy can get us into an echo chamber. A lot of the mass public actively uses AI and may even appreciate these features.
[citation needed]
This sounds like an opinion from the LinkedIn echo chamber.
According to top results for a few searches,
ChatGPT has 700 million weekly active users, as of September 2025.
Gemini has 350 million monthly active users, as of April 2025.
ChatGPT is the number 1 app on the Google Play top downloaded apps currently.
Some numbers may be slightly inflated for a number of reasons, but another source is speaking to people IRL. I often overhear conversations mentioning ChatGPT or AI in general.
“AI bros” are definitely cancerous but a lot of average consumers do in fact use AI frequently
Does anyone even talk about what the “AI features” are?
Could I, liked recolor webpages? Automate ublock filters? Detect SEO/AI slop? Create a price/feature table out of a shopping page?
See, this would all be neat like auto translate is neat.
But I’m not really interested in the 7 millionth barebones chatbot UI. I’m not interested in loading a whole freaking LLM to auto name my tabs, or in some cutsie auto navigation agent experiment that still only works like 20% of the time with a 600B LLM, or a shopping chatbot that doesn’t do anything like Amazon/Perplexity.
That’s the weird thing about all this. I’m not against neat features, but “AI!” is not a feature, and everyone is right to assume it will be some spam because that’s what 99% of everything AI is. But it’s like every CEO on Earth has caught the same virus and think a product with “AI” in the name is like a holy grail, regardless of functionality.
Right right. If they had real innovation, they would have defined it clearly as you suggested. But they didn’t, so they don’t. It’s all snake oil, again, because that’s the entire AI industry.
The term snake oil is actually especially fitting for this, due to its origins.
In Britain in the 1700s there was a somewhat common recommendation for using rattlesnake oil from the fat of the snake for skin diseases/rheumatism. The efficacy is debated but it’s got some amount of potential for change (if not help).
This turned into people in the US selling mineral oil as “snake oil” as a total panacea. So a product that actually could do stuff being used as the poster child for a completely useless product that can solve every issue ever, buy as much as you can today.
Snake oil indeed.
- AI chatbot in sidebar (you can choose which chatbot you want, similar to how you choose default search engine)
- Shake to summarize page (on mobile)
- AI Window (separate from Normal and Private window, upcoming). Apparently it lets you chat with an AI agent to power-browse the internet.
Can’t wait to power browse.
Are we goong to get power browse or drunk browse?
The last feature is the mildly interesting one, but in my experience just not useful enough to do much, even on specific browsing finetunes or augmented APIs.
I guess shake to summarize is mildly interesting, but not really? I simply can’t trust it. And I can just paste the (much more concise) relevant text into a chat window and get a much better answer.
So, nothing.
You reminded me that one use for AI I’d really like is removing all photos of Trump, Musk and Putin from my screen. Another is filtering the twenty reposts of every event in US politics and the incessant whining about prices. Alas, I need these in phone apps more than the browser.
You don’t need LLMs for that. An iPhone is plenty powerful enough for image recognition and text classification.
That’s sorta the funny thing about AI. There’s tons of potential, but it’s just unimplemented. Even on PC, you pretty much have to have some Nvidia GPU and fight pip setting up python repos to get anything working.
Does anyone even talk about what the “AI features” are?
The one I use the most is their offline translation. I don’t have to send my data to Google Translate.
My sister (blind) uses the new screen reader stuff a lot.
Mozilla is certainly adding good AI features, but the chatbot integration isn’t something I have much use for.
Translation and screen reader have been a solved thing for a while, no “AI” browser necessary. I’m all for nice features, but bolting in a chat bot that phones home with activity data ain’t one of them.
I have a better kill switch: Waterfox and LibreWolf. Don’t have to worry about of that nonsense right out the gate.
👍
Zen has also committed to not include AI features
I jumped to LibreWolf this week. Really like it, it looks acat and feels the same. But I trust it more. Been a FF user for over 10 years.
I’m considering it. The only reason being to get away from a corporate stance that could shift at any time, even though I don’t think it’s quite there yet.
However on issue of Firefox going the way of all the other browsers, I swear that the last update or so of Firefox asked me if I wanted to enable AI, I said no, and it told me how to turn it on if I ever wanted it. Much like when I first used DuckDuckGo. So wasn’t that opt in? Did it change how it prompts a new user?
It’s worth a try. It’s only a few min to do. My extensions seem to be all from Mozilla and working fine.
The only real difference is it has a bit of a classic FF apathetic and seems to highlight who’s abusing privacy. I can click that off but I like it.
I also use DDG but that’s gone downhill on its results in the last few years.
Some websites doesn’t work with librewolf like Onshape.com . Is there an easy solution for website like those?
Waterfox. As I understand it, Librewolf goes to extremes for privacy to the point where it may impact your browsing experience. Waterfox cares about privacy too but not to the same extreme.
But that’s just saying that instead of using Firefox and not turning on the feature, you’ll use a less maintained version of Firefox where they didn’t enable the feature. I don’t feel like those projects have much value add in the privacy spectrum compared to Firefox, particularly when one of them was owned by an advertising company, and neither of them actually has the resources to maintain or operate a browser in isolation, which is a major concern regarding security and privacy both.
While I can’t speak for LibreWolf, I can tell you that Waterfox is based on the latest ESR builds and is extremely well maintained to the point of evolving into its own thing entirely. It’s one of the oldest forks I’ve known. The fact it’s been around this long should speak volumes. That being said, most modern forks that I’ve tried tend to base themselves on ESR as well and evolved in a similar way.
Not buying it. Kill switch will migrate further and further into about:config until it eventually too goes away without notice in an update six months from now.
No that’s way too paranoid. Honestly 20 years not 6 months. And by then ladybird will be viable so nbd
No six months to a year is probably about right. They’ll have enough data by then to say “most people don’t turn it off” because realistically most people will use the default, which is on.
Twenty years from now Firefox will be in a new controversy that we can’t even begin to guess.
Plus, while I can’t predict when the AI bubble will pop, whatever they add in the next year will be removed within the next five years. AI isn’t like browser tabs, or extensions, stuff that will always be a great idea, it’s just the current fad.
Well time will tell won’t it, but we’re both just guessing at the end
I hope people don’t buy the story that the kill switch was part of the plan all along.
This is clearly the result of mozilla scrambling for a compromise after the backlash to their recent announcement.
As far as i know, in the original interview that started this whole drama the new ceo mentioned that it would always be a choice and people would have the choice to opt out. All of this AI browser drama has been blown out of proportion by a very loud minority.
“Opt-out” means on by default. Installed alongside the parts that you use, and quite possibly embedded into the thing so thoroughly that the next automatic update or feature iteration will either switch it back on or remove the option entirely.
LLMs are controversial to say the least, and accomodation to those who are repulsed by their inclusion should not take the form of an option they need to jump through hoops to turn off.
Leaving them in but saying they can be turned off is like shipping pornography in your video game with a filter someone in the options you can enable. It’s a pain in the ass at the least, and means that anyone making a moral or ethical stand against its inclusion has no choice but to go elsewhere.
Lol. I don’t believe for a second that you were ever a Firefox user.
What makes you think that user preferences will be reversed on update? When was that ever an issue with Firefox? You can still use userChrome.css files from decades ago ffs.
Why should a feature like this need to be enabled for use? If you don’t want to use it, don’t use it. It’s that simple. I never used the “Take Screenshot” option in Firefox, and honestly I would have removed it if I could, but I’m not going to throw a tantrum over it.
Just commenting to say I do love the Take Screenshot feature. Snipping Tool whenever I need to add drawings or highlights, but in-browser tool for most other cases of sharing stuff I see within a browser page.
Actually having tried it a bit now I can see that it does add some value. I like that it’s aware of content boundaries. Still don’t think I’d actually ever use it, but it’s cool that it exists.
It’s cute that you think anyone who would co-opt a beloved brand like Firefox to make an “AI browser” would be at all stopped by past habits.
Screen shots are not developed by massive art theft, nor does the creation of such a feature burn so many megawatts of data center energy that it makes Bitcoin farming look efficient.
very loud minority.
Please share your data that lead you to that conclusion.
Thats nice mozilla.
Installed and set up Librewolf yesterday. Absolutely recommend to everyone.
Yes. LibreWolf ships correctly configured, no switches needed.
Some websites doesn’t work with librewolf like Onshape.com . Is there an easy solution for website like those?
deleted by creator
Have you tried a user agent switcher?
In their defense, Mozilla doesn’t have their own source of income, they heavily depend on search sponsorships. Jumping onto the AI train is one way to keep afloat for now
How does AI actually improve their financial position? Who pays them to use AI?
Probably whoever becomes the default provider for this new function. Like Google pays to be the default search provider.
The technical information is scarce but I very much doubt Mozilla is going to train and deploy their own model. It’s more likely you will get a free tier access to one of the popular commercial offerings - Gemini, ChatGPT, Anthropic … whoever pays for it.
Right now browser usage patterns are shifting because people are trying new things. Most of those new things are AI integration. If those new things prove popular or have staying power remains to be seen.
Firefox , in my estimation, is looking to leverage their existing reputation for privacy focus while also adding new technologies that people seem at least interested in trying.
A larger user base means that people will pay more for ads, which if they maintain their user control and privacy standards users are less likely to disable on the default landing screen.
It’s why they keep getting flac for working on privacy preserving advertising technology: they want you to use Firefox because they don’t stop you from disabling the bullshit, and they hope to do the bullshit in a way that makes you not mind leaving it on.
All the AI stuff was mentioned in the same context as discussion about how they need to seek money in ways that aren’t simply being paid by Google.
Nobody. That’s the answer. Absolutely nobody does. They’re doing this shit of their free will.
Too late. I switched to librewolf.
Firefox is been my second/third choose for years.
Same. I’ve been using Firefox as my primary or secondary browser since early 2000’s. No longer.
Some websites doesn’t work with librewolf like Onshape.com . Is there an easy solution for website like those?
User agent switchers?
Use Firefox.
They could save time and efforts and just not implement AI features
As much as i hate ai, and dont want it in any of my tools and programs, as a business it is a different thing.
I believe it is a bubble and it needs to burst so bad atm, but as a business you do not want to be left behind on the hype train. Its a risk you are taking if you dont, and that if the bubble doesnt burst ( which it might not ) your company is left in the dust and dies.The more reasons i want it to pop, because businesses are not taking the risk (obviously) and its killing their program for me
I don’t think there’s any evidence that AI needs to be baked into the browser. They have a robust extension ecosystem for this sort of thing.
It’s the hype thing to do right now for web browsers, and Firefox is already way behind. I know it may be hard to believe if you only browse Lemmy (like myself), but the average person actually likes these so-called “AI” tools or at least a significant amount of them do.
So Firefox needs to try and attract more normies from chrome, a lot of these “normal” people would be more likely to switch for that 'one killer ai feature".
Also imo we should all be ready to switch to Ladybird when the first version comes out, I know I’ll be running the Alpha. If you don’t know Ladybird is a brand new browser written from the ground up, it’s also open source. https://ladybird.org/
Don’t swap to Ladybird, it won’t be completely secure when (or if) it releases and so far there’s nothing going for it other than it not being Firefox or Chrome. If you’re gonna swap then use the Servo browser which is already actually out.
I know it may be hard to believe if you only browse Lemmy (like myself), but the average person actually likes these so-called “AI” tools or at least a significant amount of them do.
This is probably true but makes me sad. I tell all my friends not to use the lie machines but a bunch of people at work use them all the time.
It is what it is. I do personally use LLMs because I recognize it is a tool that is actually good at some things, for instance, cursory research on something I’m working on that can get me a general idea of the knowledge I should be looking into to get the task done. Key aspect being I need to do all the follow up research from real sources to gather more data, and of course verify the assumptions from the LLM.
The problem is people taking the word of the actually incredibly cool (on a math level) next best token generator as the truth of God. Its dumb people doing dumb things, problem is dumb people imo.
Edit: I guess that’s sort of harsh. There should also just be some better education from the people making these tools on the problems and correct ways to use them.
They must’ve noticed people fleeing in droves to librewolf or floorp.
And they wanted to accelerate it?
Those who can read articles, know that the new CEO said in the original interview that there will be the option to turn the AI features off.
Reading is useful, more people should learn to do it.
Floorp
Firefox is no longer trusted. Fuck that AI bullshit. We don’t want it, we don’t need it, and they don’t care.
Until the bad press dies down and they feel like removing it
I think it says something that they’re backpedaling at all. This isn’t just “bad press”, its a real market for people who want products that are “AI Free”. And since Firefox is the other-other browser, its a market they’re feeling obligated to fill.
The Microsoft way:
“Why do you disable that”
“You’re weird. Everyone uses that”
“You cannot disable that”
I’m already trying out LibreWolf on desktop and IronFox on mobile.
So far everything is working, probably another week of testing/using and then I’ll just uninstall Firefox.
Would be nice if folks stopped calling LLMs AI. If they are true AI, they would be able to learn how a kill switch works and disable it
So, an actual artificial brain?
Can I secretly upload mine?
EDIT: Don’t worry! It’s small enough to fit!
We already have a term for “true” AI, it’s AGI - Artifcial General Intelligence.
Both AGI and LLMs are types of artificial intelligence, as are things like OCR, speech to text systems, or chess engines, and a ton of other things, it’s a vast field of computer science.
AGI is a hack term that is only necessary because people have been misusing the term AI. All that other stuff is just really fancy scripting and math. There’s no I involved, A or otherwise.
It’s really not. The people who invented the term “artificial intelligence” both meant something different than you’re thinking the term means and also thought human level intelligence was far simpler to model than it turned out to be.
You’re thinking of intelligence as compared to a human, and they were thinking of intelligence as compared to a wood chipper. The computers of the time executed much more mechanical tasks, like moving text into place on a printer layout.
They aimed to intelligence, where intelligence was understood as tasks that were more than just rote computation but responded to the environment they executed in. Text layout by knowing how to do line breaks and change font sizes. Parsing word context to know if something is a typo.
These tasks require something more than rote mechanical action. They’re far from human intelligence, and entirely lacking in the introspective or adaptive qualities that we associate with humans, but they’re still responsive.Using AI only to refer to human intelligence is the missuse of the term by writers and television producers.
The people who coined the terms would have found it quaint to say something isn’t intelligence because it consists of math and fancy scripting. Their efforts were predicated on the assumption that human intelligence was nothing more than math, and programming in general is an extremely abstract form of math.
To add an example, in video games we call it AI whenever the enemy appears to make a choice.
Yup, that’s a good one.
Purely for discussions sake, I’d say that the video game entity is making a choice, but it lacks volition.
No freewill or consciousness, but it’s selecting a course of action based on environment circumstances.
