this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
154 points (94.8% liked)

Firefox

20363 readers
8 users here now

/c/firefox

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.


Rules

1. Adhere to the instance rules

2. Be kind to one another

3. Communicate in a civil manner


Reporting

If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Tldr: Theyre adding an opt-in alt text generation for blind people and an opt-in ai chat sidebar where you can choose the model used (includes self-hosted ones)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Self-hosted and locally run models also goes a long way. 90% of LLMs applications don't require users to surrender their devices, data, privacy and security to big corporations. But that is exactly how the space is being run right now.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)
[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The alternative is only supporting self hosted LLMs, though, right?

Imagine the scenario: you're a visually impaired, non-technical user. You want to use the alt-text generation. You're not going to go and host your own LLM, you're just going to give up and leave it.

In the same way, Firefox supports search engines that sell your data, because a normal, non-technical user just wants to Google stuff, not read a series of blog posts about why they should actually be using something else.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I missed that alt text specifically is local, but the point stands, in that allowing (opt-in) access to a 3rd party service is reasonable, even if that service doesn't have the same privacy standards as Mozilla itself

To pretty much every non-technical user, an AI sidebar that won't work with ChatGPT (Google search's equivalent from my example previously) may as well not be there at all

They don't want to self host an LLM, they want the box where chat gpt goes

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

deleted by creator

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)
[–] barryamelton@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it was truly opt-in, it could be an extension. They should not be bundling this with the browser, bloating it more in the process.

The extension API doesn't have enough access for this.

You technically can run your own local AI, but they hook up to the big data-hungry ones out of the box.

While it is opt-in and disabled by default, this is the real problem.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

deleted by creator

[–] xad@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The extension APl doesn't have enough access for this.

If that's the case, then it's pretty great that Mozilla is also the exact company in charge of the extension API.

I have only one extension, and I use it longer than I use Firefox. I also trust the developer a lot more than I trust Mozilla.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mozilla isn't in charge of the extension API, it uses Chromium's WebExtensions API

[–] xad@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Mozilla isn't in charge of the extension API, it uses Chromium's WebExtensions API

No. They are basing their implementation on that of Chrome, but nobody is forcing Mozilla to do this ... So yes, Mozilla is responsible for all the APIs they integrate. Of course.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, just create an entirely new, incompatible extension engine from scratch for this one feature specifically!

[–] xad@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, just create an entirely new, incompatible extension engine from scratch for this one feature specifically!

This is absolutely not how any of this works.

While Mozilla implements the WebExtensions API based on the W3C standard, they are not bound to a 100% verbatim implementation. Like other browser vendors, Mozilla has the flexibility to extend or modify the API as needed, as long as they maintain compatibility with the core standard. Adding new APIs or features to the extension system does not require creating an entirely incompatible engine. Browser vendors often add non-standard extensions to APIs, which can later be proposed for inclusion in the next version of the standard if they prove useful. So, Mozilla can certainly add new APIs to their extension system without making it incompatible with the existing WebExtensions ecosystem. This is not difficult to understand.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Look at the Firefox subreddit. One month ago, people were criticizing the thought of adding AI to Firefox. Two months ago, same thing. Look at the Firefox community. See how many times people requested AI.

I believe what most people are concerned about, including myself, was the AI features being enabled automatically and then having to disable it like every other application would do to inflate metrics.

Because this is opt in like it says in the blog I am ok with it there and disabled.