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

[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.