Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
Uncategorized
221
Posts
107
Posters
4
Views
-
@firefoxwebdevs Because the term "AI" has been so heavily overloaded to include ML, LLMs, Uncle Tom Cobly and all, including the translations in the "AI" kill switch would be signalling to users that their consent is being taken seriously - especially the way that unwanted "AI" is being included so conspicuously in so many tech products at the moment. Ask for consent, don't end up begging for forgiveness on what you see as a technicality.
@decadecity @firefoxwebdevs "their consent is being taken seriously" this thread and the entire behavior of Mozilla prove this false
-
@firefoxwebdevs an important addendum regarding Firefox translate: by my math (N = my replies), 25% of its users are fucking unhinged
I told them not to use the necronomicon to train the base model but here we fucking are
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs i'll have you know i'm at least 75%* hinged
* vibe estimate, but we carefully graphed it so it's data now
-
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs i'll have you know i'm at least 75%* hinged
* vibe estimate, but we carefully graphed it so it's data now
@davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs I know you, you’ve read much worse things than the necronomicon
you’ve written wiki articles about most of them
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs Of course, ML translation suffers many of the same problems. Also, why are you integrating translation as a core browser feature? Seems more like an extension feature.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs Thanks for involving the community in this! I've found the translation feature really useful even if the results aren't state-of-the-art!
I agree with other commenters that there's an issue with the term "AI", but I don't have any suggestions.
To match my current preferneces, I would like an AI kill switch to keep translations with local models, but disable LLM chatbots, summarizers, and agents.
-
@davidgerard @firefoxwebdevs I know you, you’ve read much worse things than the necronomicon
you’ve written wiki articles about most of them
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs firefox translate is to blame, arrest that instead
-
I think the challenge with everything going on here is one of clarity.
@sil, you are asking them about disclosure of models and sourcing. But that is far from the only AI that is in the system.
The tool that does grammar checking and language identification does not leverage an LLM, and while there may be some type of model underneath, the context is very different. Tools that detect spam pages or faulty JavaScript that locks the pages, that's another type of AI hard at work.
Is the browser allowed to support speech to text?
@jmax You're calling out that Firefox may not be able to do this, but I think that mischaracterizes the scope of what's happening here.
The browser has several types of non-deterministic, probabilistic tools in it that provide useful services. Now there's a backlash against one very specific version of those non-deterministic, probabilistic tools. But the backlash is vociferous, often unsolvable, and incredibly broad.
It's hard to engage with non-specific anger.
@gatesvp @firefoxwebdevs @sil @jmax They could engage with the nonspecific anger by removing the VERY SPECIFIC technologies at issue
Instead they want to make us argue about "well, if we haul away the shit, do you want us to haul away the bark dust, too? Some people need bark dust, so you have to let us smear shit all over everything"
-
@cassidy @firefoxwebdevs The term "AI" has existed since 1956 so of course it's going to have a very broad definition.
Things don't just stop being "AI" when AI researchers invent newer "more AI" stuff.
@mage_of_dragons @cassidy @firefoxwebdevs We also know exactly what lies in store for the current slate of AI: 20 years of funding drought, just like all its ancestors
-
@twifkak Wouldn't that be a valid working definition of "open"?
@tasket It would be, much in the way that "guaranteed not to turn pink in the can" is a valid description of bad salmon [1]. A disingenuous mislead from what people really care about in the product.
[1] I know it didn't happen. It's a good metaphor.
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs My closest answer would be "no", but I think the question is kind of mis-phrased here, and that's probably going to lead to a confusing and potentially misleading outcome.
The problem that people have is not with "AI" as a generalized category, but with the current generation of thieving, climate-destroying, grifting systems that are marketed as AI to an overwhelming degree - notably LLMs and "generative AI", but really anything with those inconsiderate properties.
If your kill switch is presented as an "AI kill switch", then depending on the person they're either going to understand that as "exploitative tech", or as "machine learning", and so make different assumptions as to whether local translation is included in that.
So I think you'll have to be a lot more explicit about what you mean; either by describing clearly what the kill-switch includes, or what it excludes, right in the place where the option is offered. Otherwise it's damned if you do, damned if you don't; depending on whether you include translations, either one or another group is going to be upset with the unexpected behaviour.
So, ethically, if the translation feature is built on ethically collected data, and it has no outsized climate impact, then I would not consider it something that needs to be included in a "get rid of all of it" kill switch. But to convey this clearly to users, both that and why it isn't included should be explained right there with the button, with potentially a second-step option to disable it anyway if someone still feels uncomfortable with it.
That way you've transparently communicated to users and shown that you have nothing up your sleeve by immediately and proactively offering them an option to disable that, too, if they have already shown interest in removing "AI" features.
-
@tasket It would be, much in the way that "guaranteed not to turn pink in the can" is a valid description of bad salmon [1]. A disingenuous mislead from what people really care about in the product.
[1] I know it didn't happen. It's a good metaphor.
@twifkak I think you're mixing up "We do not own" with "We do not have rights to". 🤷
-
Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
They're not LLMs. They're trained on open data.
Should translation be disabled if the AI 'kill switch' is active?
@firefoxwebdevs
Y'all know as well as we do this feature-creep junk belongs in extensions - if anywhere at all. It does NOT belong in or anywhere near core.Please keep the world's browser lean and healthy and strong. We need all the help we can get.
-
@zzt @pixel @firefoxwebdevs "Nobody likes our product any longer, but at least we never had to entertain any *shudder* critical feedback."
@liquor_american @zzt @pixel @firefoxwebdevs As the only remaining cross-platform browser that is not chromium, Mozilla deserves nothing but pressure to do better. Defending Mozilla about anything other than making Gecko better is giving them permission to eventually be just another chromium skin
-
@firefoxwebdevs an important addendum regarding Firefox translate: by my math (N = my replies), 25% of its users are fucking unhinged
I told them not to use the necronomicon to train the base model but here we fucking are
@zzt @firefoxwebdevs Sorry, but I just cannot escape the call for #ShamelessPlug (though, as usual, #IHaveNothingToSell):
-
@zzt I posted this poll after a meeting where we discussed the design of the kill switch, and there was uncertainty around translations. I want to make sure the community's voice is represented in these discussions.
@firefoxwebdevs Perhaps it would be a good idea to do occasional one-time surveys of Firefox users - like when they start the browser up after an update. That way you get to hear directly from the people who are using it. Lots of folk on the socials have strong opinions but aren't necessarily using FF as a daily driver.
If I was writing the questions they might include things like...
- Should FF enable new AI features by default? [y/n]
- Would you like to be able to see at a glance which AI features are enabled? [y/n]
- Are there any particular features (AI or not!) that you feel FF is missing, and which you would actually use on a regular basis?
On that last one, I would maybe have some check boxes for things that tend to come up again and again like native RSS reader, FTP, Gemini (protocol!), WebUSB, WebSerial, UXP etc.
-
@twifkak I think you're mixing up "We do not own" with "We do not have rights to". 🤷
@tasket Perhaps. Show me what rights they have to it.
-
@firefoxwebdevs My closest answer would be "no", but I think the question is kind of mis-phrased here, and that's probably going to lead to a confusing and potentially misleading outcome.
The problem that people have is not with "AI" as a generalized category, but with the current generation of thieving, climate-destroying, grifting systems that are marketed as AI to an overwhelming degree - notably LLMs and "generative AI", but really anything with those inconsiderate properties.
If your kill switch is presented as an "AI kill switch", then depending on the person they're either going to understand that as "exploitative tech", or as "machine learning", and so make different assumptions as to whether local translation is included in that.
So I think you'll have to be a lot more explicit about what you mean; either by describing clearly what the kill-switch includes, or what it excludes, right in the place where the option is offered. Otherwise it's damned if you do, damned if you don't; depending on whether you include translations, either one or another group is going to be upset with the unexpected behaviour.
So, ethically, if the translation feature is built on ethically collected data, and it has no outsized climate impact, then I would not consider it something that needs to be included in a "get rid of all of it" kill switch. But to convey this clearly to users, both that and why it isn't included should be explained right there with the button, with potentially a second-step option to disable it anyway if someone still feels uncomfortable with it.
That way you've transparently communicated to users and shown that you have nothing up your sleeve by immediately and proactively offering them an option to disable that, too, if they have already shown interest in removing "AI" features.
@firefoxwebdevs Here's a concrete example of what I mean, that should be pretty consistent with the Firefox UI design:
-
@wes @firefoxwebdevs Sure. But can we agree that it does not represent a core functionality of a web browser?
Like "this meeting could've been an email," but "this feature could've been an add-on."
A web browser should load web pages, allow you to interact with them, and offer add-on support for functionality that doesn't match the definition of "web browser." It's all pretty straight-forward if you're not a marketer, whose brains are all broken.
> A web browser should load web pages, allow you to interact with them ...
I would point out that translating a web page written in a non-native language allows me to interact with said page. Your argument can go both ways.
-
@firefoxwebdevs My closest answer would be "no", but I think the question is kind of mis-phrased here, and that's probably going to lead to a confusing and potentially misleading outcome.
The problem that people have is not with "AI" as a generalized category, but with the current generation of thieving, climate-destroying, grifting systems that are marketed as AI to an overwhelming degree - notably LLMs and "generative AI", but really anything with those inconsiderate properties.
If your kill switch is presented as an "AI kill switch", then depending on the person they're either going to understand that as "exploitative tech", or as "machine learning", and so make different assumptions as to whether local translation is included in that.
So I think you'll have to be a lot more explicit about what you mean; either by describing clearly what the kill-switch includes, or what it excludes, right in the place where the option is offered. Otherwise it's damned if you do, damned if you don't; depending on whether you include translations, either one or another group is going to be upset with the unexpected behaviour.
So, ethically, if the translation feature is built on ethically collected data, and it has no outsized climate impact, then I would not consider it something that needs to be included in a "get rid of all of it" kill switch. But to convey this clearly to users, both that and why it isn't included should be explained right there with the button, with potentially a second-step option to disable it anyway if someone still feels uncomfortable with it.
That way you've transparently communicated to users and shown that you have nothing up your sleeve by immediately and proactively offering them an option to disable that, too, if they have already shown interest in removing "AI" features.
@joepie91 yeah, I agree with all that, but even tech folks are asking for a way to 'get rid of AI'. I'm pretty certain if we tried to redefine what they're asking for, it would be received poorly.
-
@tasket Perhaps. Show me what rights they have to it.
@twifkak They're using the "PD" mark, thus public domain.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@ok hello
-
At the risk of stating the obvious, there isn’t much honesty in the journalism we get.
-
@FraEmme uno molto carino è drako, che si fa solo in due
-
@misantropo70 non sono un popolo che si fa telecomandare.
-
...
Se potesse interessare: abbiamo toccato temi collegati (nell'ottica open-source) nel capitolo 7 della nostra roadmap:
https://wiki.f-si.org/index.php?title=Recommendations_and_roadmap_for_the_development_of_open-source_silicon_in_the_EU2/2
-
Concordo pienamente sul peso amministrativo e sull'abbandono dei progetti, ma temo che la situazione sia ancora peggiore: La selezione dei progetti troppo spesso non è obiettiva, e spesso la stessa Commissione è un ostacolo. Credo molto nella trasparenza: Bisognerebbe, secondo me, richiedere la pubblicazione dei proposals (come abbiamo fatto noi) eventualmente dopo un (breve) periodo di embargo, e dei nomi dei "reviewers".
...
1/2
-
-
@aeva *exaggerated hair shoulder toss* don't hate me because I'm beautiful!
