best not find yourself saying "people have different definitions of opt-in"

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@jargoggles @fasterandworse Jake Archibald is absolutely a guy you need to watch your drink around

but don't worry, he only does that because Mozilla pays him to

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@Oggie @fasterandworse also, they could have ... just not used an LLM for the translator?

[froztbyte@mastodon.social]

@Oggie @fasterandworse I’d guess longer, but only because I’ve seen how long features do end up in implemented but unsurfaced state (I’ve been watching some firefox dev around the profile switcher changes, and there’s things that showed up alongside)

as I’ve said elsewhere: moz has already made the choices on this months ago, and is now just working the plan to get them out

[anthony@indieweb.social]

@fasterandworse @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs I'm no GenAI fan, nor support Mozilla's leadership overall strategy. Yet I find Jake's explanation accurate: Firefox fans/critics have a different threshold of what is opt-in. Models included in the binary? Feature disabled but UI to suggest enabling it (as in https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/116006613406440846)?

There's always a balance to find when introducing a new feature (AI or not):
- A mention in release notes, but most users will not discover it.

(continued)

[anthony@indieweb.social]

@fasterandworse @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs

- You can open a release notes modal/tab, but some complain that you're getting in the way.
- You can have some UI to promote it when the user is doing a related action, but some complain you're trying to force them to use it.

I feel that Firefox found a good balance introducing those GenAI features.

GenAI is very divisive, and sometimes we critics will be negative about a related subject without cause. I believe this is one of those situations.

[fasterandworse@hci.social]

@anthony @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs please don't think of this as a "we"

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@anthony @fasterandworse @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs "we critics" meaning your fellow ex-Mozilla employees?

"hello fellow genAI critics"

[anthony@indieweb.social]

@fasterandworse I'm not sure what "this" is referring to in your answer.

My "We" meant "GenAI critics, including me". I thought we had this in common (but I wasn't trying to imply we had more than that in common).

[onepict@chaos.social]

@fasterandworse they really are going for the pick-up artist idea of consent aren't they?

Mozilla needs a governance fork for itself to steward the codebase.

https://dotart.blog/cobbles/ai-and-that-guy-at-the-bar

[anthony@indieweb.social]

@davidgerard I tried to mean "GenAI critics, including me".

I'm not sure which "fellow ex-Mozilla employees" you're referring to.

I've re-read my messages and I can't find an interpretation where my use of "we" could be connected to my former Mozilla employment. But English is not my native language so maybe I missed it?

[nlswrnr@mastodon.social]

@davidgerard @anthony @fasterandworse @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs Ah come on guys, people are allowed to have a slightly different stance from yours and still be critical, no?

You don't always have to flat-out reject something to be critical of it...

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@nlswrnr @anthony @fasterandworse @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs literally a mozilla guy stanning for mozilla and faking "as a critic", read his CV

[nlswrnr@mastodon.social]

@davidgerard Again, isn't the world not that black and white? Like, you can work for a corporation and still be critical of some things they do, no?

[anthony@indieweb.social]

@nlswrnr @davidgerard

Are you talking about me as a Mozilla stan?

- I've left Mozilla 11 years ago because I believed that Mozilla's leadership was clueless (still believe that).
- My first sentence in this thread included "I'm no GenAI fan, nor support Mozilla's leadership overall strategy".
- I want Mozilla to run out of money so people can stop pretending it has any influence on the industry.
- Safari is my daily driver.

But yeah, I worked for Mozilla between 2010 and 2015.

[nlswrnr@mastodon.social]

@anthony Yeah, that seems... reasonable?

I'm not sure what conspiracy @davidgerard is seeing here... 🤷‍♂️

[aaribaud@piaille.fr]

@anthony @fasterandworse @HTeuMeuLeu @firefoxwebdevs There is no threshold, nor can there be, on what opt-in *is*. What you describe are thresholds (options, in fact) on *how to get users to opt in*. To which my answer is: has Mozilla back-pedaled on the kill switch yet? Because threshold or not, the kill switch is an opt-*out* feature, not an opt-in one.