[protocolture]

> Because it's a browser that "just works." We can't have this if Firefox stays in the pre-ai era.

Strongly disagree.

Theres no expectation of AI as a core browsing experience. There isnt even really an expectation of AI as part of an extended browsing experience. We cant even predict reliably what AI's relationship to browsing will be if it is even to exist. Mozilla could reliably wait 24 months and follow if features are actually in demand and being used.

Firefox can absolutely maintain "It just works" by being a good platform with well tested in demand features.

What they are talking about here, are opt out only experiments intruding on the core browsing experience. Thats the opposite of "It Just Works".

>I know Mozilla doesn't have much good will right now, but hopefully with the exec shakeup, they will right the ship on making FF a great browser.

Its already a great browser. It doesnt need a built in opt out AI experience to become great.

[mcny]

There was also no expectation of process isolation in Mozilla Firefox when Google Chrome first came into the scenes. Electrolysis was painful for Mozilla and yet it was necessary.

[protocolture]

So instead of being flexible enough to adapt to new requirements as users demand them, they are blindly implementing things before they are requested just in case?

[heavyset_go]

Believe it or not well-intentioned developers, product managers, etc can read the writing on the wall and see where user expectations are heading based on the apps and products they already use.

[protocolture]

Exactly why I am baffled. You would think they could read the writing on the wall.

[heavyset_go]

I don't like it, but ChatGPT is a product that nearly a billion people are using. It's broken into popular culture. My mom, who has trouble sending an email, uses it. She found it on her own.

More importantly, generative AI is incredibly popular with younger cohorts. They will grow up to be your customer base if they aren't already. Their expectations are being set now.

Again, I don't like it, but that's the reality.

[protocolture]

Quoting myself from another thread.

> I love it. I love going to the AI place and knowingly consulting the AI for tasks I want the AI to perform. That relationship is healthy and responsible. It doesnt need to be in everything else. Its like those old jokes about how inventions are just <existing invention> + <digital clock>.

> I dont need AI on the desktop, in microsoft office, replying to me on facebook, responding to my google searches AND doing shit in my browser. One of these would be too much, because I can just access the AI I want to speak to whenever I want it. Any 2 of these is such substantial overkill. Why do we have all of them? Justify it. Is there a user story where a user was trying to complete a task but lacked 97% accurate information from 5 different sources to complete the task?

Being against the random inclusion of AI in the browser, isnt the same as being against AI completely. It needs to justify its presence.

[bondarchuk]

Video games are incredibly popular and my mom plays them, does that mean Firefox should have video games baked in at the base layer?

[therouwboat]

Co-worker was talking about how he tried to make invitation card with chatgpt, just a picture of his house and text and AI failed to do it. It said he didn't have copyright to the picture and used another random pic, layout was wrong etc. Then younger co-worker gave tips how to do it, what tools to use and offered to make it with his better AI program.

What could be done in few minutes with a free program is now multiple hours with billion dollar AI tools and you have less control what the end result is.

[krisgenre]

+ Children are growing up with ChatGPT and Gemini. It has already become the de facto standard for learning. AI in browsers is inevitable.

[godelski]

Last I checked Firefox was sitting at 4% browser market share. If you include Brave you just get to 5%[0].

So truth is that privacy isn't enough to get people to switch. 5% share isn't enough to stay alive and protect privacy.

  > they are blindly implementing things before they are requested

This is the job of every engineer. Your job is to understand the product and where it advances and where it can help the users. The users don't know the technical side. They barely know what they want. Yes, you should listen to users but you also have to read between the lines to actually figure out what they want. Frankly, the truth of the matter is that what people say they want is very different than what they actually want.

Work with customers and you'll experience this first hand... I thought it was a big enough meme that everyone knew this

Speaking about reading between the lines, the privacy community is not very good at advocating for privacy. Look at Signal, it has similar backlash to Mozilla. The community shoots itself in the foot because the products are not perfect. But here's the thing, both Signal and Firefox are not products intended to maximize privacy at all costs. They are products to maximize privacy while being appealing to the masses. Are there more secure and private solutions out there? Hell yeah. But are those tools practical for the masses? Don't fool yourselves.

So stop with this bullshit, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You don't have to use Firefox to root for them. Go use a fork like the Mullvad browser or Waterfox. If you're a power user then just be a fucking power user. I use Arch but that doesn't mean I'm going to piss on Ubuntu every chance I get. I fucking hate Ubuntu but I'm going to root for them because every new Ubuntu user is one less for Microsoft and Apple and every new Ubuntu user is a potential new <literally any other distro is better> user. So why get angry because someone is making a step in the right direction? So what if their legs aren't long enough to get all the way to where you are (which didn't take one step either!).

So let's be very clear about this. I'm not mad at you because I want AI in Firefox (I don't), I'm mad at you because you're attacking our literal last line of defense for a secure and private internet. I'm mad at you for purity testing. Stop with this "no true Scotsman" bullshit. We can have those arguments at a later date when Firefox isn't on its last leg and/or when we have a diverse choice in browsers. But at this point *all you are doing is advocating for Chrome*. Whether you realize it our not. We've been playing this fucking game for a decade now and you can either look at the results or continue to ignore them. But it didn't work, so we need to try something else.

[0] https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-20...

[protocolture]

>This is the job of every engineer.

No its not. Engineering is about right sizing the product. This is not that. Theres no user story, theres no pressing demand. Every CTO in the world might be racing to force AI into their products regardless of utility but there's no reason to pretend this is being done for good engineering reasons.

>Work with customers and you'll experience this first hand.

Theres no customer benefit to shoving AI in every application at every layer. This is not about the customer. This is about a race to cram the feature in every conceivable space and see where it sticks. This is corporate and has no sense of good engineering. They also don't want it. What a combo. No utility and no demand. If anything its a bit like the story of fish fingers, where the pressing need, was the big warehouse full of unwanted fish bits that they wanted to move, and the innovation was productising it in such a way that people would actually purchase and consume it. In this case we have DC's full of AI cards that desperately want a market. It might be uncharitable, but I do wonder if the Mozilla Foundation has been promised some financial reward if they solve this issue.

There has not been any demonstrable requirements gathering for this change. An executive directed this, and to pretend otherwise is insane.

>Speaking about reading between the lines, the privacy community is not very good at advocating for privacy.

No they aren't very good at it at all, but that's a massive non sequitur.

>So stop with this bullshit, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

No, defending Firefox from valid criticism is the self inflicted injury.

>I use Arch but that doesn't mean I'm going to piss on Ubuntu every chance I get.

Ok, but I would think it fair and reasonable to criticise Ubuntu if they decided to randomly cram an opt out LLM into the distro, and I think your criticism of them also deserves to be heard. You dont need to be the Ubuntu or Firefox internet defense force.

>So why get angry because someone is making a step in the right direction?

I haven't been angry at a single firefox user here, I would ask you to stop making things up just to be angry about. There's not an ounce of "Boycott" or anything in my posts. I am writing this from firefox. I am permitted, to be critical of the browser I am using.

>I'm mad at you because you're attacking our literal last line of defense for a secure and private internet.

"Attacking". Its clearly necessary criticism. The devaluing of the product is coming from inside the house. Their chief rival is, critically, releasing a separate browser to test their AI features in. For Chrome itself Gemini is in the extension store. It is OPT IN, not OPT OUT. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gemini-for-chrome/a... Their chief rival is respecting end user consent better. If you want them to be a more popular browser, why don't you hold them to a better standard than Chrome, instead of policing the critics?

(Also boo for making me open chrome to check)

>Stop with this "no true Scotsman" bullshit.

I literally cannot identify a no true scotsman argument in my comments. Theres a difference between saying "No TRUE web browser would" and pointing out validly that there's no interest or demand in the feature being rolled out. If anything, the closest thing in this thread to a no true scotsman, while still failing it technically, is the idea that you cant be a true supporter of privacy while being critical of Mozilla.

>We can have those arguments at a later date when Firefox isn't on its last leg and/or when we have a diverse choice in browsers.

No now is a great time.

>But at this point all you are doing is advocating for Chrome.

No I am asking them to be competitive with chrome, and treat users that well or better.

>But it didn't work, so we need to try something else.

Enshittification isnt a plan.

[godelski]

  > no customer benefit to shoving AI in every application at every layer.

What AI has been shoved down your throat?

Translate requires you to download the model for language pairs. That's opt-in.

The chatbots aren't chatbots, they're just a fucking shortcut to the 5th most popular website on the internet.

I hate to break it to you, but there's also a shortcut to the #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, #9, #10, and #13 most popular websites. It's the literal url bar... You can type "!w hacker news" to search wikipedia for hacker news.

Sorry, it is just as laughable to say firefox is shoving Wikipedia down your throat as it is to say they're shoving AI.

  > if they decided to randomly cram an opt out LLM into the distro,

Do you realize how big an LLM is? Clearly you don't. The browser isn't going to fit on a lot of people's computers if they shove an LLM in.

And hey, if you feel I'm wrong here go jump on a fork that isn't going to add those things like Mullvad or Waterfox. That's still supporting Firefox in the way of standing against Google while also making a clear signal that you don't want those features. Have your cake and eat it too, but I'm saying "Shut up with the talk that makes people switch to Chrome". We have to be honest with ourselves here. All this outrage at Mozilla for not being pure enough is just driving people to Chrome. That's why I'm calling all this fucking idiotic. It's a literal footgun. But don't listen to me look at what's happened in the past. Look at the comments here. Look at the comments in the past. FFS people were equating Mozilla accepting crypto donations with shipping a miner in the browser. It literally takes place in the Mastadon thread we're all talking about. Those things are wildly different and it is wildly a disingenuous interpretation.

So yeah, I'm going to keep calling this complaining idiotic and counterproductive. We've been grabbing our pitchforks for years every time Mozilla even slightly steps out of line, or even if we think they might! And for years their browser share has been siphoned off to Chrome or some painted up variant. So forgive me if I don't believe your actions align with the goals you claim. And forgive me if I cannot distinguish complaining from criticism, because as I've stated above, your evidence doesn't appear to be what you claim it is. Saying they're shipping LLMs is just as disingenuous as saying they shipped a crypto miner. It is such a grotesque mischaracterization that it is laughable.

[protocolture]

>"Shut up with the talk that makes people switch to Chrome".

No this is silly and you should dispense with it. Theres no cow so sacred it cant be criticised.

>Do you realize how big an LLM is? Clearly you don't.

Yes I do, I have run qwen 4b locally.

>The browser isn't going to fit on a lot of people's computers if they shove an LLM in.

The point I was making. Anything down this track is going to cause resource headaches, browsers are already a resource headache.

>We've been grabbing our pitchforks for years every time Mozilla even slightly steps out of line

I have been cool with literally everything else they have done, and even spent time pointing out that the T&C changes were relatively normal practice. Lumping me in with every other criticism you don't like is a genetic fallacy.

>It's a literal footgun.

Its community feedback. They ignore it at their peril.

> But don't listen to me look at what's happened in the past. Look at the comments here. Look at the comments in the past. FFS people were equating Mozilla accepting crypto donations with shipping a miner in the browser. It literally takes place in the Mastadon thread we're all talking about. Those things are wildly different and it is wildly a disingenuous interpretation.

I dont see how you are equating these. My post isn't in the Mastodon thread.

>Saying they're shipping LLMs

You literally quoted my "if", not reading and understanding how that word modifies the language around it is on you.

Theres really 2 states until there's an OS level LLM layer.

1. Shipping a low parameter/ otherwise compressed LLM.

2. LLM features are non local, with all the headaches that entails.

> And hey, if you feel I'm wrong here go jump on a fork that isn't going to add those things like Mullvad or Waterfox

I am required as a matter of employment to use an approved web browser 9-5. We have strict rules against AI use, only permitting copilot with enterprise data protection. (Using copilot without that stupid green tick, and letting customer data into it, is an instant RGE, same with any other LLM)

Another leg of this, is that I have 1000 profiles on 1000 computers for quite a few different customers. The nature of my work does not permit a single profile that roams to every computer I use. I cannot cross the streams between multiple customers.

I am not going to be asked to go to every PC and server, and opt out of AI features. I am likely to be asked to completely remove Firefox as an approved browser, pull it off every machine, and push only Microsoft Edge going forward. Because perversely, it auto signs in to Copilot with EDP via 365, if EDP has been purchased. So it can (sadly) do whatever the fuck it wants.

We are super sensitive to supply chain stuff, so are unlikely to be permitted to use any fork. We recently dismissed an addon for a product that was developed, by one of the core developers of the product, on his own time as an extra feature. Why? The guy didnt spend a lot of time maintaining it and seemed overwhelmed with pull requests. I haven't looked at the Firefox forks, but I know our security posture and its probably a non starter.

Even the idea that an unapproved LLM could scoop up what I am browsing is going to poison the well.

And like I have repeatedly stated, I like firefox. I want to use firefox. Part of the reason I want to use firefox is that it has no LLM instead of the approved LLM that I detest.

Even if Firefox goes "aha, we will implement our service to connect to Copilot with EDP" it would have to do so in a fashion where it is completely seamless, and zero touch, with no failback to regular copilot or another service. I cant conceive of Microsoft being that friendly.

We aren't alone in this. Lots of organisations are making similar decisions. I speak to other service providers going through the same headaches. Our contracts make it our responsibility to actively prevent customer data exfiltration, which is a basic feature and requirement of a lot of LLM implementations. As you stated, the browser LLM will want the browser window context. Microsoft (sadly) understands this, and knows that users will desire path to an LLM if one isn't available, and they understand what words we need written into the service agreement to make EDP attractive. Copilot is terrible, its also perfect for enterprise.

Firefox has over the last few years become a starkly friendly safe haven for privacy focused work. I feel, or at least felt, completely safe performing sensitive work with their product. Work being the keyword in enterprise. Things that become a toy or a risk go away. Chrome use in similar orgs to mine is decreasing for various similar reasons.

I am not sure if you think losing a decent chunk of enterprise users with sensitive requirements is worth it but at least you spent your time defending Firefox from criticism that might have retained those users? And when Firefox is just feature for feature exactly doing what chrome is doing, you might see new users show up for some reason? I don't see that as a winning strategy.

I really don't think they should play the ice cream vendor game at all. Let Edge and Chrome play in that space. Give firefox room to not suck. Let firefox be an actual alternative with significant points of difference not just an also ran.

[charcircuit]

This is how Firefox fell behind Chrome and bled their entire market share. The strategy of letting Chrome out innovate them and then copy what they think is good is not a strategy that works.

[rightbyte]

I'm quite sure only "we" care about esoteric browser features.

"Does it have tabs? OK. Fine."

Firefox losing market share were probably more due to Google nagging desktop users than features.

What did Chrome have that Firefox didn't?

[charcircuit]

Not crashing frequently due to having proper tab isolation and a sane extention system.

[fasbiner]

You and your argument are reductionist.

[noirscape]

Firefox fell behind Chrome because of aggressive marketing from Google in a way that probably violates some antitrust laws if they were actually being enforced, combined with a couple of own-goals from Mozilla.

Basically Google exploits their market dominance in Search and Mail to get people to use Chrome (and probably their other services too). When you search in a non-Chrome browser, you'll be constantly informed by Google about how much better their search is with Chrome through pop-ups and in-page notifications (not browser notifs). If you click a link in the Gmail app on iOS, rather than opening the browser, you get a Chrome advertisement if they detect it isn't your default browser.

This goes hand-in-hand with Chrome being the default Android browser (don't underestimate the power of being the default) and Mozilla alienating their core audience of power users by forcibly inserting features that those power users despise.

Chrome never won on features, it won on marketing and abuse of a different monopoly.

[amethyst]

It works pretty well for Apple

[charcircuit]

Not on desktop. They are losing market share to chrome year over year.

[Izkata]

> Mozilla could reliably wait 24 months and follow if features are actually in demand and being used.

I'm also wondering how much of what they come up with could be implemented as an addon instead of a core part of the browser.