@firefoxwebdevs I don’t think you can make any assumptions then without granular switches that let the user control every facet. In which case, this kill switch is probably less a binary checkbox and more a slider or a series of discrete options. And as a Firefox and Thunderbird user, we are used to lots of toggles and switches under the hood, so I’m fine with that kind of control.
Discussion
Loading...
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.
the "kill switch" is a hypothetical proposed in this post:
https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782
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. that's not a coherent presentation of ideas.
the concept as presented imposes multiple false dilemmas.
firstly, 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. it was dictated that it would be a built-in, so that's what Mozilla is going with.
why Mozilla went hard AI is entirely unclear, nor is what it'll 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".
2. make all this shit an extension like they should have a year ago.
3. and your little translator too.
by the way, here's the Twitter version of the poll, posted the same time as the masto version. the screenshot is the *entire* responses to the poll, because Twitter is a plague graveyard.
https://xcancel.com/FirefoxWebDevs/status/2008586590998983153
note also the claim about "open data", which turns out to mean "we took the data cos someone found it lying around fell off the back of a truck honest" and not "open" in any other sense.
but the weird thing is, it has one less option for no good reason (Twitter allows four options too).
@davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs I appreciate the time and effort you put into this thoughtful response, emphasizing points that are an important part of the discussion.
@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
@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.