Post
I can, I think, understand why Mozilla wants to centre Firefox around AI.
If it wants to appeal to an AI-using userbase, perhaps that make sense.
And perhaps that prize is sufficient to risk alienating some of their existing and future userbase, who do not want those features.
I wonder what the added complexity or cost would be for Mozilla, to have a version with AI and a version without AI. Would it be worth it for them, I wonder.
@neil I would be happy with a large slider/checkbox at the top of the settings page that allows you to select your privacy profile e.g., no ai, privacy + noai, or all the "features". and a result it turns off all the fiddly little settings you have to find in variety of menus. Then also the account syncs this settings profile to any other browsers you have.
Like how easy it is to turn off DDG AI features:
@neil it needs to be opt-in instead of opt-out. That's my main problem with a lo of new Firefox features. They drop hem as the default instead of giving us an option screen to select to turn it on.
Mozilla is awful at messaging and misunderstanding their user base. It's a problem that has plagued them for years. I seem to remember someone from Mozilla even staing that they didn't think users could make these decisions on our own.
The cost is only a box to check or not in the parameters page.
@neil or just a lever on first start to enable it, being disabled by default?
@neil I think sometimes those of us here in the fedi can greatly overestimate the opposition to AI amongst the wider public (and I say that as someone who's every bit as opposed as the average fedi person).
@neil I would switch back to Firefox if they did
@neil What "AI-using userbase"? It's a bunch of tech bro dorks high on their own supply who have no idea what anyone outside their tiny little bubbles wants. Same phenomenon that got us "scan the QR code to order at restaurants".
I'd happily install firefox-noai, and know that I don't need to worry about turning off AI features after each update. They wouldn't be present in that fork/build.
@neil alternatively, a simple "no AI" switch would work for me. I'm sure that could be doable and simpler for them and keep both camps happy.
@neil
Techlore did an interview with Bobby the Firefox CTO.
You could skip ahead to 33:46 of the interview for their approach to AI.
https://techlore.tv/w/vDgnFB6bSoTqyGa6p3V6hn
Or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkxZRgHYZcM
@yagler I don't suppose that you are aware of a text version, by any chance?
@neil
On peertube you can open up the transcript, but you would need to guess at who is talking.
Sorry I haven't dug into whether this is posted somewhere in any blog.
@neil
I use mainly fennec and zen (but Firefox for work). I do go in and disable/hide the AI buttons but after watching that interview I can understand why they feel the need to include it.
It would be cool to have clearer control over AI settings during setup and the settings.
@neil The problem is that FF will never have the resources to compete with the "AI browsers" build by the AI hypists, nor by the second rate adopters such as Chrome.
But like everyone else in the US tech world, they need to be seen to do something with AI to remain relevant.
If they'd be smart (or so I think) they'd leaning into great plug-in support - "be the browser everyone builds AI for first" as the hype slogan. That'd genuinely benefit the entire userbase.
I wonder if any of the Firefox forks will go this route? LibreWolf or WaterFox might do this and produce an alternative build?
I do wish Mozilla would give us a modest cost site licence subscription or one off purchase option to have access to a build with no AI and other bollocks 😟
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
