4 ms·

AI Integration Is Coming to Firefox

21 points by cranberryturkey 2y ago

debacle 2y ago
I may be a luddite, but I neither want nor need this.
josefritzishere 2y ago
More terrible AI features to turn off. great.
castalian 2y ago
Please noooooooooo
peanut_worm 2y ago
Firefox is bad now
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices.
  - Nicksil 2y ago
    >Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices. So, first best? I concur!
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      Yea, I do think it’s the best browser and use it every day, but I don’t really love it, mostly it is just for lack of good options. Browsers are in a bad spot nowadays. The web has been turned into this half-baked app platform, and as a result nobody makes a web browser to just, like, download and view documents.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  No, it's not. It's just not as good as it used to be.
- hooverd 2y ago
  Nobody hates Firefox more than Firefox users.
_lvbh 2y ago
Librewolf will hopefully strip it out. - https://librewolf.net https://librewolf.net (Firefox but with good defaults and bloat stripped out)
- logicprog 2y ago
  I second this. I'm so happy I switched to LibreWolf a few years ago. I get all of the benefits of the arkenfox user script, plus even more without having to install or maintain it myself, and in addition to that I get Pocket and various hardcoded telemetry, etc, being stripped out — I can trust them to turn Firefox into an actually good focused browser no matter what Mozilla does upstream. Plus it doesn't go as far as Mulvad, which explicitly states that they intend down the road to start ignoring user's configuration settings in an effort to prevent users from making their browser more fingerprintable, instead of letting users decide what balance of usability and privacy they want (for instance, I still use Firefox Sync). That's fine for them to do, and I wish them the best to block, because they're not really taking away user freedom since someone can just use an alternative browser, but that's not something I want to use personally. LibreWolf lets me choose.
squigz 2y ago
Previously discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786004
jklinger410 2y ago
Wasn't able to read the whole article, but if this installs locally on my machine and can find a way to use my GPU to generate responses, I'm all in.
- ukuina 2y ago
  It's HuggingChat (cloud).
  - jklinger410 2y ago
    Then I'm out!
rasengan 2y ago
I was hoping there would be a choice, at the very least, for local LLM use, but alas, after reading the article, it appears that is not the case. LadyBird is our only alternative. Edit: Well and the FF forks that won't have AI. :P
- cranberryturkey 2y ago
  support for ollama/open-ui would be ideal.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  It's opt-in; the "alternative" is "don't turn the feature on". (Though also yes it really should also let you pick the backend including a local API endpoint.)
- gpm 2y ago
  Personally I have a lot more hope for servo (which was restarted by ex/non-mozilla folks in 2023) than ladybird.
r00fus 2y ago
So this is semantic sugar for selecting text then pasting into chatGPT interface? What real advantage does it offer other than saving a click or two?
- dewey 2y ago
  A lot of products are "semantic sugar" for saving a click or two. It's a big difference if something is included in an OS or app vs having to know about it, switch context to it and using it every time. Would you use reader mode if you always had to switch to another app and paste the content? Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar? This applies for this AI feature, but also for any other feature in general.
  - djmips 2y ago
    It's true - for example for Chrome built in Google image search gets used way more than the old way of copying and pasting an image to another tab.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > Would you use reader mode if you always had to switch to another app and paste the content? I don't use reader mode to begin with. > Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar? Absolutely -- that's what I currently do. I don't keep my bookmarks in the browser, because I want to be able to access them from any browser from anywhere. So I use an independent bookmark server instead. Adding a new bookmark takes three clicks (four if I have to manually browse to my server first). It's a minor inconvenience that the benefits more than compensate for.
    - dewey 2y ago
      The point is not that nobody ever would reach to other workflows but that the majority of people will stick the defaults (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-power-of-defaults/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-power-of-defaults/) and also don't install a lot of third party apps. HN is of course a very different bubble and very different to how regular people use computers or the internet.
erikgahner 2y ago
I have gotten into the habbit of removing any software with opt-in AI chatbots. I recently uninstalled iTerm2, and I fear Firefox will be next.
- aavshr 2y ago
  just curious, why is this the case?
  - erikgahner 2y ago
    I am not against AI in software per se (I like the ChatGPT desktop app), but I prefer not to have AI in tools where the primary use case is not related to AI. Specifically, I don't want to have to consider how the AI is being developed and integrated (e.g., whether my data is being used for training an LLM), and, in general, I prefer for my software to be a bit conservative in relation to new trends (being it anything from crypto to AI).
zmk5 2y ago
This is Opt-In. People really need to cool it with the Firefox hate.
- jawilson2 2y ago
  Cool it with AI hate? Love Firefox, I don't understand slapping "AI" on a browser.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    Just because you don’t want the feature doesn’t mean other don’t. I certainly would - assuming the implementation is privacy friendly
    - account42 2y ago
      Ok, then install an extension for it? FF doesn't even come with ad-blocking yet which is useful to a lot more people.
      - Havoc 2y ago
        >Ok, then install an extension for it? Or build it in and people who don't want to use it don't? Your stance of FF should only have the features I personally want and the features others want should be in extensions is frankly laughable
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    To me it is just usual Firefox behaviour chasing some trend or other. Adding features for sake of adding features. I wonder what is the over-under when this feature will be deprecated...
  - squigz 2y ago
    Do you, honestly, not see the benefits of LLMs, particularly in a browser?
    - 2y ago
otikik 2y ago
[flagged]
Connector2542 2y ago
[flagged]
jarbus 2y ago
I get that a lot of people on HN won't like this, but I don't think FF really has a choice here. If they want to compete with mainstream browsers, they'll need to integrate the features they will support to avoid losing existing users and keep attracting new ones. If they weren't losing the browser war already, they'd have more leeway I think.
- dralley 2y ago
  There's also plenty of applications for local models integrated with a browser - such as language translations without needing to send the text off to google.
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  proper service worker, PWAs and file system API support would be much better to attract and keep users, imo. And just get back to implement modern web APIs in general.
- nine_k 2y ago
  What mainstream browser features would I miss? Of all the AI-related stuff, I'm only aware of natural language translation bring integrated. Some ML but not "AI" stuff, like OCR and detecting QR codes on pictures could be nice, too. But not ChatGPT, right? Right?
- account42 2y ago
  Firefox has 0% chance in competing with Google/Microsoft/Apple on their terms. The only chance of Firefox gaining market share is focusing on offering something unique, ideally something the big three are unwilling to offer: something that empowers the user instead of third-parties.
nperez 2y ago
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it sounds like they're doing this the right way. I want to be able to run a local model using something like VLLM or FastChat, then be able to call it from a context menu. No obnoxious toolbar taking up the UI like Edge, just access to use the tools I'm running when I need them. That's what this appears to be - not a case of a specific AI service being shoved in anyone's face.
- PaulKeeble 2y ago
  AI models however are pretty big so its going to make the browser installation a lot bigger even if its only pulled down when you first go to use the feature.
dewey 2y ago
"testing AI integration with its development build" Keyword "testing" and "development build". Maybe before uninstalling consider the possibility that it doesn't make it into the production build or only behind some opt-in. One of the perks of open source development is that you can see things progressing before they are finalized.
gpm 2y ago
AI has come to firefox. In the very sensible form of integrated local translation. If this chatgpt's website embedded into firefox's UI comes to firefox I might just have to find a different browser though. It's just an obscene giant embedded ad for a company.
- rdlw 2y ago
  How is it an ad? The article says it gives you a choice of four competing products.
  - gpm 2y ago
    How is embedding a third party webpage in your product not an ad. Advertising multiple competing products doesn't make it any less of an ad. That's normal. Most places with advertising spots advertise multiple different things. They way to make this not an ad would be to 1. Remove any and all branding, chatgpt should not be mentioned, hugging face should not be mentioned, openai should not be mentioned, etc. 2. Make there be no way to pay for it. That's what they did with translation, where they embedded something actually useful and not just a webpage into the UI in a way that a browser extension easily could if people actually wanted this "feature".
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
    Public promotion of a product or service. It could be one. It could be four. It's no different than when Mozilla began promoting certain websites, e.g., via "tiles". Around 2015, it formed a "Content Services" team to develop ideas around promotion and advertisement.^1 This included hiring an "advertising expert". IMHO it is strange for a web browser to be promoting specific content on the web but others might find it normal. The text-only browser I use does not do it, command line TCP/HTTP clients do not do it. Early graphical browsers did not do it. Regardless of whether it is appropriate or not, to deny that this is advertising is, to borrow the term from AI-speak, hallucination. 1. https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/comments/feed/ https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/comments/feed/
Havoc 2y ago
Would prefer the option to ALSO ask something about entire article via keyboard and sidebar
sigmar 2y ago
Summarizing huge blocks of text is a very useful feature of the LLMs, why are HN users so angry about this?
- Guest42 2y ago
  As an opt in add-on with transparent side effects, this would be fantastic
  - rdlw 2y ago
    It is opt-in.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- GrassTheKayaks 2y ago
  [dead]
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Probably because it integrates with cloud AI providers, and the kind of person who uses Firefox probably has strong opinions about their browser integrating with a proprietary 3rd-party service and sending personal data to it.
  - sigmar 2y ago
    yeah, but it is opt-in. and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > yeah, but it is opt-in. I agree that that helps. > and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button? Yes, I am absolutely annoyed that Firefox defaults to searching with Google, and much more so that it defaults to sending text from the search+URL bar before executing the search. Though I suppose on the basis that Mozilla does need to fund Firefox development, I would be more willing to give them a tiny bit of slack if Hugging Face or whoever is paying to be the default AI.
weinzierl 2y ago
Chrome Dev Channel comes with a Gemini Nano model too.[1] A text model will certainly be useful, but where it really gets crazy is when you imagine something like: <img model="moz-img-v6" temperature="0" src="An old man with a beard and a funny hat."/> If everyone has the same model and the temperature is zero everyone should get the same image. You could even imagine a source set to display the generated image only on devices with low bandwidth connections or as a preview until the real image is loaded. srcset="An old man with a beard and a funny hat., /img/old-man.jpg 2x" I think it would be cool, and I am sure some will disagree, to integrate this in the old img tag and reuse the mandatory src attribute for the prompt, but it will probably end up as an overcomplicated API with a gazillion of ifs and buts. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-4Ylipjoo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-4Ylipjoo
- gpm 2y ago
  I think we're at least a decade away from generating images being cheap enough that it makes sense to generate them on end users device them instead of generating them once and sending the bits over the wire.
mathw 2y ago
Ah yes, another article examining an experimental feature as if it's in its final release UI already. Very... helpful? I'm not happy about the concept, but as long as I can turn it all off (or just not turn it on) I'm not tooooooo upset about it. I just think implementing it is a waste of time when I've yet to see a thing done by an LLM that seemed worth the effort. Unless a local model can do website translation with decent accuracy. That could be cool.
BuildTheWorld 2y ago
Does anyone remember how Netscape tried to expand the browser by adding email, news, an html editor, a calendar and other stuff? This reminds me of that strategy. And does anyone remember how Chrome killed Internet Explorer? By making a slim, fast and standard compliant browser without any bells and whistles. I wish Firefox would focus on making the browser a great basis for software that runs in it. And leave the development of applications and tools to websites and plugins. That Firefox does not support the file system access API makes Firefox users have a really clunky load+save experience in web apps for example. This is the reason I use Chrome and suggest using Chrome to the users of my software. Not because Firefox has to few bells and whistles.
dec0dedab0de 2y ago
I have been using mozilla browsers pretty much since they started. Hell, I used them before mozilla started if you count netscape. I have been quick to forgive all the bad moves they have made in the last decade, but it’s clear that they have been chasing what they think average people want. while making the overall experience worse. I know people are saying it’s opt-in, but if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin? Except for a brief stint with konqeror in 2004, this is the first time I am seriously considering switching away for my daily driver. I just have no idea what the current browser landscape looks like.
- squigz 2y ago
  Why not make literally every feature of the browser a plugin?
  - Izkata 2y ago
    That's basically what Uzbl was: https://www.uzbl.org/ https://www.uzbl.org/ https://github.com/uzbl/uzbl https://github.com/uzbl/uzbl
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin? Because Firefox neutered the plugin system too much for that to be viable. It's such a shame, too. They have added all sorts of things to the mainline browser that really should be plugins. They have abandoned the idea that the browser itself should be lean, and users should be able to add whatever bells and whistles they prefer in the form of plugins.
  - gpm 2y ago
    What part of this exactly do you think is not possible with a standard firefox extension? I don't see anything. Even if I'm missing something, firefox has a history of creating new APIs to allow extensions to do things that they want done, for instance with the container tabs extension. That, frankly, is the only remotely acceptable way to incorporate branded third party AIs into the browser.
drivingmenuts 2y ago
It certainly seems like a thing that could be done just as easily with an extension, instead of building it in.
pixxel 2y ago
> They also point out that it follows the principles of user choice, agency, and privacy, by being optional, Yeah, no. FF doesn’t believe in those principles; anyone savvy installing FF knows they have to dig through settings to turn off a bunch of shit, and delete Google as the default. It’s optional now whilst they test it and then it’ll be on by default.
jerhewet 2y ago
How do I disable (or, better yet, delete) it?
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Firefox users demanded "AI"^1 and Mozilla has answered the call. FN1. ?

debacle 2y ago

I may be a luddite, but I neither want nor need this.

josefritzishere 2y ago

More terrible AI features to turn off. great.

castalian 2y ago

Please noooooooooo

peanut_worm 2y ago

Firefox is bad now

bee_rider 2y ago
Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices.
- Nicksil 2y ago
  >Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices. So, first best? I concur!
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Yea, I do think it’s the best browser and use it every day, but I don’t really love it, mostly it is just for lack of good options. Browsers are in a bad spot nowadays. The web has been turned into this half-baked app platform, and as a result nobody makes a web browser to just, like, download and view documents.
JohnFen 2y ago
No, it's not. It's just not as good as it used to be.
hooverd 2y ago
Nobody hates Firefox more than Firefox users.

_lvbh 2y ago

Librewolf will hopefully strip it out. - https://librewolf.net https://librewolf.net (Firefox but with good defaults and bloat stripped out)

logicprog 2y ago
I second this. I'm so happy I switched to LibreWolf a few years ago. I get all of the benefits of the arkenfox user script, plus even more without having to install or maintain it myself, and in addition to that I get Pocket and various hardcoded telemetry, etc, being stripped out — I can trust them to turn Firefox into an actually good focused browser no matter what Mozilla does upstream. Plus it doesn't go as far as Mulvad, which explicitly states that they intend down the road to start ignoring user's configuration settings in an effort to prevent users from making their browser more fingerprintable, instead of letting users decide what balance of usability and privacy they want (for instance, I still use Firefox Sync). That's fine for them to do, and I wish them the best to block, because they're not really taking away user freedom since someone can just use an alternative browser, but that's not something I want to use personally. LibreWolf lets me choose.

squigz 2y ago

Previously discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786004

jklinger410 2y ago

Wasn't able to read the whole article, but if this installs locally on my machine and can find a way to use my GPU to generate responses, I'm all in.

ukuina 2y ago
It's HuggingChat (cloud).
- jklinger410 2y ago
  Then I'm out!

rasengan 2y ago

I was hoping there would be a choice, at the very least, for local LLM use, but alas, after reading the article, it appears that is not the case. LadyBird is our only alternative. Edit: Well and the FF forks that won't have AI. :P

cranberryturkey 2y ago
support for ollama/open-ui would be ideal.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
It's opt-in; the "alternative" is "don't turn the feature on". (Though also yes it really should also let you pick the backend including a local API endpoint.)
gpm 2y ago
Personally I have a lot more hope for servo (which was restarted by ex/non-mozilla folks in 2023) than ladybird.

r00fus 2y ago

So this is semantic sugar for selecting text then pasting into chatGPT interface? What real advantage does it offer other than saving a click or two?

dewey 2y ago
A lot of products are "semantic sugar" for saving a click or two. It's a big difference if something is included in an OS or app vs having to know about it, switch context to it and using it every time. Would you use reader mode if you always had to switch to another app and paste the content? Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar? This applies for this AI feature, but also for any other feature in general.
- djmips 2y ago
  It's true - for example for Chrome built in Google image search gets used way more than the old way of copying and pasting an image to another tab.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > Would you use reader mode if you always had to switch to another app and paste the content? I don't use reader mode to begin with. > Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar? Absolutely -- that's what I currently do. I don't keep my bookmarks in the browser, because I want to be able to access them from any browser from anywhere. So I use an independent bookmark server instead. Adding a new bookmark takes three clicks (four if I have to manually browse to my server first). It's a minor inconvenience that the benefits more than compensate for.
  - dewey 2y ago
    The point is not that nobody ever would reach to other workflows but that the majority of people will stick the defaults (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-power-of-defaults/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-power-of-defaults/) and also don't install a lot of third party apps. HN is of course a very different bubble and very different to how regular people use computers or the internet.

erikgahner 2y ago

I have gotten into the habbit of removing any software with opt-in AI chatbots. I recently uninstalled iTerm2, and I fear Firefox will be next.

aavshr 2y ago
just curious, why is this the case?
- erikgahner 2y ago
  I am not against AI in software per se (I like the ChatGPT desktop app), but I prefer not to have AI in tools where the primary use case is not related to AI. Specifically, I don't want to have to consider how the AI is being developed and integrated (e.g., whether my data is being used for training an LLM), and, in general, I prefer for my software to be a bit conservative in relation to new trends (being it anything from crypto to AI).

zmk5 2y ago

This is Opt-In. People really need to cool it with the Firefox hate.

jawilson2 2y ago
Cool it with AI hate? Love Firefox, I don't understand slapping "AI" on a browser.
- Havoc 2y ago
  Just because you don’t want the feature doesn’t mean other don’t. I certainly would - assuming the implementation is privacy friendly
  - account42 2y ago
    Ok, then install an extension for it? FF doesn't even come with ad-blocking yet which is useful to a lot more people.
    - Havoc 2y ago
      >Ok, then install an extension for it? Or build it in and people who don't want to use it don't? Your stance of FF should only have the features I personally want and the features others want should be in extensions is frankly laughable
- Ekaros 2y ago
  To me it is just usual Firefox behaviour chasing some trend or other. Adding features for sake of adding features. I wonder what is the over-under when this feature will be deprecated...
- squigz 2y ago
  Do you, honestly, not see the benefits of LLMs, particularly in a browser?
  - 2y ago

otikik 2y ago

[flagged]

Connector2542 2y ago

[flagged]

jarbus 2y ago

I get that a lot of people on HN won't like this, but I don't think FF really has a choice here. If they want to compete with mainstream browsers, they'll need to integrate the features they will support to avoid losing existing users and keep attracting new ones. If they weren't losing the browser war already, they'd have more leeway I think.

dralley 2y ago
There's also plenty of applications for local models integrated with a browser - such as language translations without needing to send the text off to google.
sabbaticaldev 2y ago
proper service worker, PWAs and file system API support would be much better to attract and keep users, imo. And just get back to implement modern web APIs in general.
nine_k 2y ago
What mainstream browser features would I miss? Of all the AI-related stuff, I'm only aware of natural language translation bring integrated. Some ML but not "AI" stuff, like OCR and detecting QR codes on pictures could be nice, too. But not ChatGPT, right? Right?
account42 2y ago
Firefox has 0% chance in competing with Google/Microsoft/Apple on their terms. The only chance of Firefox gaining market share is focusing on offering something unique, ideally something the big three are unwilling to offer: something that empowers the user instead of third-parties.

nperez 2y ago

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it sounds like they're doing this the right way. I want to be able to run a local model using something like VLLM or FastChat, then be able to call it from a context menu. No obnoxious toolbar taking up the UI like Edge, just access to use the tools I'm running when I need them. That's what this appears to be - not a case of a specific AI service being shoved in anyone's face.

PaulKeeble 2y ago
AI models however are pretty big so its going to make the browser installation a lot bigger even if its only pulled down when you first go to use the feature.

dewey 2y ago

"testing AI integration with its development build" Keyword "testing" and "development build". Maybe before uninstalling consider the possibility that it doesn't make it into the production build or only behind some opt-in. One of the perks of open source development is that you can see things progressing before they are finalized.

gpm 2y ago

AI has come to firefox. In the very sensible form of integrated local translation. If this chatgpt's website embedded into firefox's UI comes to firefox I might just have to find a different browser though. It's just an obscene giant embedded ad for a company.

rdlw 2y ago
How is it an ad? The article says it gives you a choice of four competing products.
- gpm 2y ago
  How is embedding a third party webpage in your product not an ad. Advertising multiple competing products doesn't make it any less of an ad. That's normal. Most places with advertising spots advertise multiple different things. They way to make this not an ad would be to 1. Remove any and all branding, chatgpt should not be mentioned, hugging face should not be mentioned, openai should not be mentioned, etc. 2. Make there be no way to pay for it. That's what they did with translation, where they embedded something actually useful and not just a webpage into the UI in a way that a browser extension easily could if people actually wanted this "feature".
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  Public promotion of a product or service. It could be one. It could be four. It's no different than when Mozilla began promoting certain websites, e.g., via "tiles". Around 2015, it formed a "Content Services" team to develop ideas around promotion and advertisement.^1 This included hiring an "advertising expert". IMHO it is strange for a web browser to be promoting specific content on the web but others might find it normal. The text-only browser I use does not do it, command line TCP/HTTP clients do not do it. Early graphical browsers did not do it. Regardless of whether it is appropriate or not, to deny that this is advertising is, to borrow the term from AI-speak, hallucination. 1. https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/comments/feed/ https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/comments/feed/

Havoc 2y ago

Would prefer the option to ALSO ask something about entire article via keyboard and sidebar

sigmar 2y ago

Summarizing huge blocks of text is a very useful feature of the LLMs, why are HN users so angry about this?

Guest42 2y ago
As an opt in add-on with transparent side effects, this would be fantastic
- rdlw 2y ago
  It is opt-in.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
GrassTheKayaks 2y ago
[dead]
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Probably because it integrates with cloud AI providers, and the kind of person who uses Firefox probably has strong opinions about their browser integrating with a proprietary 3rd-party service and sending personal data to it.
- sigmar 2y ago
  yeah, but it is opt-in. and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > yeah, but it is opt-in. I agree that that helps. > and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button? Yes, I am absolutely annoyed that Firefox defaults to searching with Google, and much more so that it defaults to sending text from the search+URL bar before executing the search. Though I suppose on the basis that Mozilla does need to fund Firefox development, I would be more willing to give them a tiny bit of slack if Hugging Face or whoever is paying to be the default AI.

weinzierl 2y ago

Chrome Dev Channel comes with a Gemini Nano model too.[1] A text model will certainly be useful, but where it really gets crazy is when you imagine something like: <img model="moz-img-v6" temperature="0" src="An old man with a beard and a funny hat."/> If everyone has the same model and the temperature is zero everyone should get the same image. You could even imagine a source set to display the generated image only on devices with low bandwidth connections or as a preview until the real image is loaded. srcset="An old man with a beard and a funny hat., /img/old-man.jpg 2x" I think it would be cool, and I am sure some will disagree, to integrate this in the old img tag and reuse the mandatory src attribute for the prompt, but it will probably end up as an overcomplicated API with a gazillion of ifs and buts. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-4Ylipjoo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-4Ylipjoo

gpm 2y ago
I think we're at least a decade away from generating images being cheap enough that it makes sense to generate them on end users device them instead of generating them once and sending the bits over the wire.

mathw 2y ago

Ah yes, another article examining an experimental feature as if it's in its final release UI already. Very... helpful? I'm not happy about the concept, but as long as I can turn it all off (or just not turn it on) I'm not tooooooo upset about it. I just think implementing it is a waste of time when I've yet to see a thing done by an LLM that seemed worth the effort. Unless a local model can do website translation with decent accuracy. That could be cool.

BuildTheWorld 2y ago

Does anyone remember how Netscape tried to expand the browser by adding email, news, an html editor, a calendar and other stuff? This reminds me of that strategy. And does anyone remember how Chrome killed Internet Explorer? By making a slim, fast and standard compliant browser without any bells and whistles. I wish Firefox would focus on making the browser a great basis for software that runs in it. And leave the development of applications and tools to websites and plugins. That Firefox does not support the file system access API makes Firefox users have a really clunky load+save experience in web apps for example. This is the reason I use Chrome and suggest using Chrome to the users of my software. Not because Firefox has to few bells and whistles.

dec0dedab0de 2y ago

I have been using mozilla browsers pretty much since they started. Hell, I used them before mozilla started if you count netscape. I have been quick to forgive all the bad moves they have made in the last decade, but it’s clear that they have been chasing what they think average people want. while making the overall experience worse. I know people are saying it’s opt-in, but if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin? Except for a brief stint with konqeror in 2004, this is the first time I am seriously considering switching away for my daily driver. I just have no idea what the current browser landscape looks like.

squigz 2y ago
Why not make literally every feature of the browser a plugin?
- Izkata 2y ago
  That's basically what Uzbl was: https://www.uzbl.org/ https://www.uzbl.org/ https://github.com/uzbl/uzbl https://github.com/uzbl/uzbl
JohnFen 2y ago
> if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin? Because Firefox neutered the plugin system too much for that to be viable. It's such a shame, too. They have added all sorts of things to the mainline browser that really should be plugins. They have abandoned the idea that the browser itself should be lean, and users should be able to add whatever bells and whistles they prefer in the form of plugins.
- gpm 2y ago
  What part of this exactly do you think is not possible with a standard firefox extension? I don't see anything. Even if I'm missing something, firefox has a history of creating new APIs to allow extensions to do things that they want done, for instance with the container tabs extension. That, frankly, is the only remotely acceptable way to incorporate branded third party AIs into the browser.

drivingmenuts 2y ago

It certainly seems like a thing that could be done just as easily with an extension, instead of building it in.

pixxel 2y ago

> They also point out that it follows the principles of user choice, agency, and privacy, by being optional, Yeah, no. FF doesn’t believe in those principles; anyone savvy installing FF knows they have to dig through settings to turn off a bunch of shit, and delete Google as the default. It’s optional now whilst they test it and then it’ll be on by default.

jerhewet 2y ago

How do I disable (or, better yet, delete) it?

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

Firefox users demanded "AI"^1 and Mozilla has answered the call. FN1. ?