@raymaccarthy @zzt I don't want a "browser experience". If it's doing its job, I won't be aware of it at all. I only use a browser as a viewer of content, period.

A browser should make websites viewable and allow the user to store locations in a way that makes sense to the *user*. Not a designer, not a bonehead CEO who thinks AI is really spiffy.

That's all it should do. It's very clear that browser execs never use tools. They have no idea what "tool" means.

neither translations nor any LLM feature have any business being built into Firefox. they should all be add-ons, at best. preferably add-ons developed by any other company than Mozilla. nobody wanted their donations to go to this crap.

like with translations, anyone who feels like they need LLM horseshit in their browser is very likely already using an implementation other than the one built into Firefox.

This is also what I would like to see. Slop features as addons.

@firefoxwebdevs @zzt

@Rycochet @zzt I did not follow all what happened around Firefox and the community. Did Mozilla made a public consultation regarding AI integration in Firefox ?
Do we have some reliable datas about the opinion of the Firefox's users ?

I would be interested to know if the critical views (that I mostly share) expressed here are largely shared or not.

@fmasy @Rycochet @zzt You can look at the discussions on Mozilla Connect if you want commentary from community members.

Mozilla does occasionally run surveys, but results are never public.

@yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet @zzt a self-selecting survey with push-poll questions that deliberately leave out the "no LLMs in Firefox" option is unlikely to be statistically valid

(also we know this is just noise and Mozilla will do whatever was planned in the meeting anyway)

@yoasif @fmasy @Rycochet is the change to the design of the kill switch that it doesn’t exist because all of Firefox’s AI features will be moved into add-ons that aren’t installed by default?

if not, you’ve used the results of the poll to misrepresent community opinion and @davidgerard’s quote unquote “immutable position”, whatever that means to people who don’t speak passive aggressive post-it note, is absolutely correct

Sensitive content Click to open/close

@mcc I would mostly agree with this if you added this at the end of your statement: …by an idiot programmer or one who didn’t grow up and learn to code properly during the decades before AI LLMs.

In reality, I don’t think either of us are going to get our way on this one.

@mdavis I don't like the word "idiot". But a programmer who would use LLM codegen is a programmer with bad judgement. A programmer who has bad judgement cannot spot the errors made by LLM codegen. QED.

Anyway I already got what I wanted: Servo, the web browser which will replace Firefox, has *already* banned "AI" code contributions. So it's only a matter of time before Servo is complete enough for day to day use, and I can delete the AI-infected Firefox from my computer.

@mdavis
The Firefox AI "kill switch" is not "complicated" except insofar as it's incoherent. it's not "undisclosed nuance" except insofar as it's incoherent.

the "kill switch" doesn't exist.

this is important to keep in mind. once you remember that NONE OF THIS EXISTS, you will realise that every one of the dilemmas you posit is an imaginary problem that follows from incoherent postulates.

"AI kill switch purists" is not a coherent postulation because the "kill switch" does not exist.

the "kill switch" is a hypothetical proposed in this post:

mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdev…

the "kill switch" is a proposal to satisfy the demand for an opt-in by providing an opt-out.

note that Jake, in presenting the kill switch and calling it a kill switch and getting it into all the papers as a kill switch, says he's uncomfortable with the name he's publicised it as. that's not a coherent presentation of ideas.

the concept as presented imposes multiple false dilemmas.

firstly, the LLM stuff should *incredibly obviously* be an extension. this is the purest possible opt-in, despite jake's past attempts to muddy the meaning of "opt-in".

making it an extension is also eminently feasible. There is literally no technical reason it needs to be a browser built-in.

this suggests the reasons are not in any way technical. it was dictated that it would be a built-in, so that's what Mozilla is going with.

why Mozilla went hard AI is entirely unclear. this would have been late 2023. we have no idea who was inspired with this bad idea nor why they were so incredibly keen to force it into the browser.

nor is what Mozilla will do for external LLM services when the AI bubble runs out of venture capital and pops in a year or so, most of the chatbot APIs shut down and whatever remains is 10x the cost at least. but that's a problem for 2027's bonus, not 2026's.

note how the poll provides no option for "no LLM functions built-in to Firefox", in a pathetically transparent attempt to synthesize consent. jake wants to use this poll as evidence of what the user base wants, deliberately leaving out the option he knows directly a lot of them want.

and in conclusion:

1. solve the "kill switch" naming problem by branding it the "brutal and bloody robot murder switch".
2. make all this shit an extension like they should have a year ago.
3. and your little translator too.

Firefox for Web Developers

2025-12-18 12:11:21

Something that hasn't been made clear: Firefox will have an option to completely disable all AI features.

We've been calling it the AI kill switch internally. I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name, but that's how seriously and absolutely we're taking this.

…