No AI in the browser

[fl0id]

Please do not add AI in the browser as a core feature. If you want to experiment with various ways to use AI, please do it as an optional feature in the form of an addon or similar. Many people use FFX because it is not Edge or Chrome, and that necessitates sth like AI being optional.

[Ejorenz]

I agree.

Firefox is supposed to be a privacy focused browser. Now the new CEO wants to integrate AI because he sees everyone else doing it? That doesn't leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling. Nor do I see how that brings a better product to the user.

I don't use Edge or Chrome because I'm against Google and Microsoft using my personal data to train their AI. I dumped Windows 11 and switched to Mint for the same reason. If Mozilla plans to do the same then I will seek out other options. 

[EBNOW]

ME TOO! 

[Mizar]

I second that motion.

[Gamoc]

If you put AI in your browser you will destroy your user base. After all the constant complaints about AI being implemented absolutely everywhere and how privacy is being compromised constantly you decide that's a good idea? 

Clearly the problem is good completely out of touch the people meeting the decisions are. No surprise since you added ads to it long ago but I thought there's be a limit to the incompetence. 

[Mizar]

AI is a new arms race, a new power that should not be wielded by anyone.

[Ejorenz]

I agree. NO AI.

I don't use Edge or Chrome because I'm against Google and MS using my personal data to train their AI. I will certainly find a mozilla replacement if they integrate AI as well.

[BaconMacAndChee]

100%. So-called artificial intelligence exacerbates inequality and accelerates climate change, with no real benefit for humanity. And the industrial-grade bull**bleep** machines known as "generative ai" are like the latest vanguard, threatening to divide us even further. AI is a bubble, and chasing after it is NOT a human-centric product strategy. Ideally, Mozilla would resist this temptation and not waste any resources on AI.

If AI comes to Firefox, I will be looking for another browser, full stop. Mozilla, if you insist on shoveling this trash into Firefox, respect your users and make it purely opt-in.

[Mizar]

Normally I tend not to agree with posts of inflamatory nature but in this case I open an exception.

[WildThing]

Everyone in this thread sounds like the Luddites destroying the cotton gin to avoid progress, due to real, but inevitable concerns it posed.

Those who shun AI are doomed to be overwhelmed by it.

Go use GPT to write a song (you don't care about copyrighting) or have a conversation on a topic your friends aren't educated on. You'll see, the Chicken Little scenarios aren't necessarily founded.

Also, people turning on Mozilla after decades of trust due to them again being innovative in the industries they are known for, is bizarre to me. They would fall behind without investing in this oncoming technological transition.

If you don't realize they will do their best to maintain the stellar security they are already known for, and provide optional implementation, you're not deserving of their amazing app to begin with.

The. Sky. Is. Not. Falling. =:xB

[Ok-Horror-50861]

The issue for me is there is no choice to the end user.  It is a heavy handed...YOU WILL ACCEPT AI IN THE PRODUCT YOU USE...people don't like. Its a tired narrative, but I did switch to a linux distro as my daily driver to get away from m$ft copilot. Sure, one can "disable" copilot right now, but what happens when that option is removed, as will eventually and inevitably happen?  Further, I recently opened a search page through google on my cell phone and the WHOLE results page was AI generated summaries...which is not what I searched for.  I wasn't looking for anything close to the summaries.  It was a waste of my time to figure out how to disable generative ai in searches (also with results generated by the generative ai).  I'm perfectly willing to have ai, I want it on MY terms tho.  make it 100% removable from the program.  Not something you disable.  100% removable with no trace of integration.  Then I can decide when I want to utilize that feature, if ever.

People are turning on mozilla because it is one of the last bastions that is away from the prying eyes of alphabet, meta, m$ft, (among others) and they are watching it turn into the very thing they sought refuge from.  I think people will come around on ai eventually.  Personally, I'm fine with ai existing as a tool to opt-in to.  What i would really like to avoid is to have an "ai" "respond" to me when I never willingly initiated its use. If its a standalone program that can integrate with firefox, awesome.  If it is going to be baked in to the browser with no real way to remove it (not disable, remove), then i'm afraid people will realize there is really no distinction among the browsers any more and will just stick with a chromium product.

[WildThing]

As you've pointed out the "choice" is to change OS or browser. But I truly feel like Mozilla has done the right thing in taking their time with integration but that curve may leave them behind if they don't offer an optional integrated AI assistant in the very near future, or, as I mentioned in another post, the local OS AIs will begin to API integrate on their own and Mozilla may be left behind entire.

[chrismon]

Name calling won't solve anything, especially when it's inaccurate. Obviously nobody here is scared of tech. Search engines are a means to getting information, but without transparent sources, it's no longer reliable information, but part of a system aimed at making humans dependent on machine learning. Humans who want to think for themselves should have the right and the means to say 'no thanks'.

[WildThing]

I felt it was quite appropriate. Also, I see sources in 90% of the AI browser searches I see. The technology is improving and faster than anyone can predict, and I think that is a -good- thing.

[EBNOW]

technology transition....ummm ai answer only in a liberal context. and does not believe in GOD.

[WildThing]

You're a meme

[Jellebelle]

What I find quite funny about your example is that the Luddites were correct? The mills were used to diminish the workforce and create more profits for the people who owned the mills, and less money for the communities they operated in. Automation, if it were used to make jobs easier (and not diminish pay and opportunity), would be helpful - but that's not what it's for. Automation is currently and historically a tool for union busting and destruction of skilled jobs, to create more money among fewer people, as we're seeing with the current AI bubble. That people were convinced to use "Luddite" as a term for "people who hate technology" rather than "people who resist their own disenfranchisement" is a major victory in historical propaganda. Also, that these environment-destroying AI companies have convinced you that their future is "inevitable" is another bit of useful propaganda: people don't fight so hard against something they see as inevitable.

The only problem automation was built to solve is "how do I avoid paying humans for their work?" Sometimes, as with cotton mills, there were useful by-products to automation, such as "cheaper and faster creation of cotton". With generative AI*, the ONLY problem it solves is "how do avoid paying for labour". And unlike cotton mills, it doesn't work nearly as well as a person. And as most people are part of the labouring side of the equation, rather than the mill-owning side, it's ridiculously gullible to support something that does not benefit you in the slightest - that was created to disadvantage you, inherently.

Aside from the labour issue, gen AI also just doesn't work. It's solving problems that don't exist. It's like Bit Coin all over again. It creates more problems than it solves. It uses up massive amounts of water and electricity, and creates huge carbon emissions during an accelerating climate crisis.

But they said it was inevitable, and you wouldn't want to look like a Luddite, so I guess you'll support the union-busting, environment-destroying, nonsense-generating machines...

*which is another bit of hilariously transparent propaganda - there is nothing "intelligent" about generative AI. It's an appropriation of a long-understood sci-fi concept that looks NOTHING like gen AI. But because it's labelled "AI" people believe it can think.

[chrismon]

Agreed. The minute I see anything like 'AI Overview' placed higher in search results, as Chrome is now doing, I'm gone. I just switched to Firefox after about 15 years of deleting it every time it appeared on my desktop because of this. Information without sources is not reliable information, whatever Google tries to shove down our throats.

[saturnleia]

Agreed. No AI in Firefox please.

[loopscatfaec]

I completely agree. I stopped using Google the day it started shoving "AI summaries" down my throat, and I'm a hair's breadth from moving over to Linux to get away from Copilot (although for now I've killed it via the registry). It doesn't add any value whatsoever; if I want to play with AutoCorrect 2.0, I'm perfectly capable of doing so without my web browser's help.

[Mizar]

Word, I'm still on Win 10 and won't change.

[Agentvirtuel]

Hello

https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/add-google-quot-web-quot-search-as-search-engine-option/idi-p/5... ?

[RlyAsta]

Even in the most idealistic situation, AI is still currently a tool that very few users will actually take advantage of on a daily basis. Most users just want a browser that is unobtrusive. The reality of the situation is that AI is extremely expensive, obtrusive, and a privacy nightmare. For such a user-oriented company like Mozilla, AI shouldn't even be crossing their minds right now, or at any point in the next 20 years.

Where would we go if Firefox adds AI features? What mainstream browsers are left that actually respect user's privacy?

[Mizar]

Compiling my own version of Firefox is becoming an alluring idea.

[OneOfMany07]

Optional can make sense, but it depends how it's implemented in my mind... as to if it needs to be optional or is scary.  I wish we'd stop plastering "AI" all over stuff and come up with accurate terms for what's happening.

Is something recording everything I do?  Or is it just using some new method to come up with a better answer?

What basis material did it use to create that better answer, and was it stolen or licensed (or licensed material users created which kind of feels stolen if the users didn't expect AI to be trained on it)?

Shouldn't be that hard to make or find obvious names for the various flavors of stuff people have issues with.  Stop using the business/marketing buzz words that aren't accurate in the first place.  And no, making 'everything anyone has an issue with optional' is not a perfect solution everywhere.

Reminds me of a demotivational poster a coworker used as prints (we needed to print something, so they got creative)...  "Linux, because not everybody wants to build their car from scratch either."  Options/choices can lead to complexity and confusion.

Part of the power of 'software' is one person solving a problem and many other's benefiting.  Each choice/option adds complexity to the project (for future additions, testing, etc), and sometimes users just need what works for most people (which isn't always offered, or obvious).

[RogueArchivist]

I 100% agree, I only made this account specifically to comment on this myself. The widespread use of so-called "AI" has been a disaster in every conceivable way, from the privacy violations of the data collection, to the massive environmental impact it has had to our already struggling-to-survive ecosystem, I see it as an utter, total negative to both users and to society as a whole.

I use Firefox to stay away from the rest of the BS that's omnipresent in every other major browser around, and I'm utterly disappointed to see them partaking in this as well. For the first time, I'm dedicated to finding a replacement to at least mainline Firefox that doesn't contain this affront to the world at large. This free, open-source web-browser shouldn't be a "marketable product" that has all the fun buzzwords that tech bros love to hear, it should simply just do its job of letting me browse websites in a less intrusive way than the rest of the closed-source, totally for-profit browsers.

If this is being done to draw in people to the browser with "fun features", then I can confidently say it's driving out much of its current user-base. And as the competition to add as many new "features" as possible, at the cost of privacy, security, user experience, and the environment itself, is quite fierce, Firefox is choosing to abandon its core audience and leaving them with no clear alternative, in order to compete with all the major browsers that already do what it's trying to do, but "better". If it doesn't alienate users like me, then it stands alone in being a good, competent web-browser that people can feel safe and comfortable using. If it stoops to the depths of idiocy like the rest of them, then we're left with nothing good and are forced to make a good alternative browser to what was *supposed* to be the good alternative browser, leaving Firefox as one of many other browsers that feel like different coats of paint over the exact same crap.

If AI "is the future", then we simply have no future left for us. And if AI "is the future" for Firefox, then Firefox has no future left for me.

[EBNOW]

YOU SAID IT AND I COMPLETELY AGREE! 

[techfox]

Kudos to OP and a lot of replies on this conversation. Firefox user activity is dropping dramatically and they continue to focus on things that shouldn't be Firefox's target.

Congrats.

[indra]

I use a fork of Firefox that specifically removes a number of misfeatures, and the industrial lying machine is just the latest in the list.

I don't need to have the internet mansplained to me in sentence-shaped word salad. I have a husband for that.

It seems I won't be switching back to mainline Firefox any time soon.

[RogueArchivist]

Hello! That sounds exactly like what I've been looking for, what's the name of the fork you're using?

[singhh9596]

As much as I agree with this post, I think every company wants a fair share of user data to grow and doesn't want to be left behind just because they started late and remain outdated. Even DuckDuckGo has introduced their AI chatbot and claims it to be secure. Let's hope ff's AI is secure as well and we shall keep checking their terms and conditions for any change in future.

If it still concerns you, I guess ignoring is the only option we have.

[tdietterich]

I am an AI researcher, and I would love to have an OPTIONAL AI addin. But I have many questions. What data is being sent to the LLM system? Is that data retained? For how long? Can I control the data flow, delete the data, etc? It should be 100% crystal clear when my data is being sent to an AI system and when it is not.

[raster]

Agreed. I do not want to see any AI in Mozilla products. If it does get added I want a way to completely disable it.

[tdietterich]

The promise of AI-based assistants for the web is that they can understand enough of your individual context to make decisions on your behalf. But this is a huge privacy challenge. Stated another way, the AI system must surveil you long enough to understand your preferences and your current state (e.g., what you already own vs. what you are shopping for; what you already know vs. what you are trying to discover). I don't want that personal information in the cloud; I will only use it if it runs in a secure environment on my personal machine. This is why any AI capabilities must be optional and run fully locally.