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 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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

▲

heavyset_go 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

	▲	protocolture 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Firefox needs to immediately build Candy Crush into the browser. Users expect to be able to access Candy Crush and only at the layer of web browser can such a thing be implemented.

▲

therouwboat 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	7bit 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Obviously your co-worker was not able to do it in a few minutes with a free program, or he would just have done it this way.

▲

krisgenre 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

protocolture 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Children are growing up with ChatGPT and Gemini"

Yes.

"It has already become the de facto standard for learning."

Maybe.

"AI in browsers is inevitable."

Why. How does that follow. It seems like ChatGPT and Gemini are already working fine, what does the integration add?

▲

krisgenre 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Filling out forms, booking tickets, summarizing content ...

Even at work, have seen few junior developers use AI browsers to attend mandatory compliance courses and complete quizzes. Not necessarily a good thing but AI browsers may win in the end and it might be too late for Firefox.

▲

robryan 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And assuming people want deeper integration is the browser even the right level of abstraction? Arguably it would be better to have something that was operating at the OS level, like siri/gemini assistant style.

	▲	heavyset_go 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When Microsoft completely integrates its LLM into Windows, would you rather give that access to your browser, or would you rather plug in your own local model / turn it off entirely while browsing? If a global LLM becomes standard, I'd want to plug in my own local model or disable it entirely, but I don't think Microsoft nor Apple are going to open up their operating systems and make it easy to do that any time soon. The option to granularly use your own models is a plus to me in that situation.
	▲	PurpleRamen 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Every app has to open itself for integration, especially if it's not a native app like Firefox. From where they get the AI at the end doesn't really matter, they will support them all anyway.
	▲	protocolture 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Precisely. Like the winner could be in 100 spaces, but more likely going to be something global.

▲

rockskon 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

?????

Why does the existance of an AI chat box website mean a browser must do more than take you to that website?

The forceful inclusion of LLMs in places that have no value are simultaneously ubiquitous and obnoxious.

▲

PurpleRamen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because the chatbox can't access other websites, doing its work there. That's what integration is all about, to connect parts.

▲

darkwater 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"why do I have to go and fill with copy paste that form or navigate through that page to do $something if that AI browser can do it for me?"

And in that scenario, there is a GIGANTIC need for a user-first, privacy-respecting browser using ideally local models (in a few years, when HW is ready)

▲

rockskon 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Again: ???????

You people need to be forced to use your product in the exact form your product is presented to end users. With the exact frequency it's presented to end users. In all the wrong places as it is presented to end users.

Maybe then you'll understand why shoving AI in every conceivable crevice is incredibly obnoxious and distracting and, most importantly, not useful.

▲

darkwater 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Shoving an AI agent in every website is distracting and not that useful. Shoving an AI agent in every app is distracting as well.

Having one global AI agent per operating system or browser (where most of the digital life happens, in the case of desktop browsers), for the people that want to have an AI agent, it's probably going to be useful, if well implemented.

▲

protocolture 6 hours ago | parent [-]

OS might make sense, but the browser level is a weird middle space for it.

	▲	darkwater 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I know, but at the end of the day most people nowadays do the vast majority of their job in a browser, and there is already a well defined API to manage its content. Also browsers are coming there faster and at some point it will become what people expect, rather what's most optimal.

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲ godelski 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>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 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`> 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.