Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
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 alternative perspective:
Remove all AI-LLM, AI-ML related functionality.
Then have target end-user (web developer) choose, informed by their values & preferences what functional components they’d like to “plug-in” to web-browser for ML content processing for web page-
- Language translation - enable on device locally download-on-demand ML or use your own
- Dictionaries
- …
Once these are real-world validated & functional, they can be shared via open source commons with others. -
@sebastian which feature resulted in the ban? Given that you can access eg chatgpt in any browser, shouldn't your company ban all browsers?
@jaffathecake ChatGPT (and many other web based things) are firewalled.
Also you are looking at a compliance issue from a technical viewpoint. As the implications of genAI generated content wrt. copyright and things like patent applications are still somewhat unclear in many jurisdictions, the simplest solution is to stay well clear of any tool that claims to do anything "AI".
If the contract with the customer says "no AI because it exposes us to legal risks", then the work has to be done in a clean environment where there is nothing that could be considered AI. -
@ShadSterling @chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91 translation is already opt-in. You're prompted about it, and the model is only downloaded if you say you want it.
@ShadSterling @chillicampari @firefoxwebdevs @joepie91
You're *constantly* prompted about it on every single site you visit. Calling that opt-in stretches the definition of consent.
-
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 I would rather like for auxiliary features to be added via the extensions API.
-
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 There's nothing intrinsically wrong with AI. If you can do translation on device in a privacy-preserving way, there's no reason to disable it.
-
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 I'm not a fan of this all or nothing approach to functionality. What happened to the paradigm of things being scope and/or time-limited, eg just for this page, for x minutes?
@scribe it isn't all or nothing (the currently winning option is granular control). This is the first time I've heard a request for AI to be disabled in a time-limited way. Tell me more about your use-case.
-
@scribe it isn't all or nothing (the currently winning option is granular control). This is the first time I've heard a request for AI to be disabled in a time-limited way. Tell me more about your use-case.
@firefoxwebdevs I think it's less about use cases and more about general trust, as privacy often boils down to. If you're talking about an AI "kill switch", you're talking about trust in what's been defined as "AI", and trust in the browser developer as a whole.
Once definitions are murky, there's an area open for ongoing redefinition. One way to adopt a "private by default" approach is to follow what cookies do, for instance, and allow users to allow limits to the extents of permissions.
-
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 there's a huge difference between calling out to an external llm service and using the translation-specific on-device models.
(If, hypothetically, llm's like chatgpt were not a thing, would people have such visceral reactions against the translatelocally models?)
-
@firefoxwebdevs there's a huge difference between calling out to an external llm service and using the translation-specific on-device models.
(If, hypothetically, llm's like chatgpt were not a thing, would people have such visceral reactions against the translatelocally models?)
@unhammer a lot of folks in the replies & responders to the poll feel differently. I personally agree with you, but I want the kill switch to have broader appeal.
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs where did I say I'm uncomfortable with the name "kill switch"?
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs in the quoted post included as the reference
-
@firefoxwebdevs I think it's less about use cases and more about general trust, as privacy often boils down to. If you're talking about an AI "kill switch", you're talking about trust in what's been defined as "AI", and trust in the browser developer as a whole.
Once definitions are murky, there's an area open for ongoing redefinition. One way to adopt a "private by default" approach is to follow what cookies do, for instance, and allow users to allow limits to the extents of permissions.
@scribe I'm not sure cookies are a great source of inspiration when it comes to privacy
-
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs in the quoted post included as the reference
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs but I didn't say that. Get your words out of my mouth.
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs but I didn't say that. Get your words out of my mouth.
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs
> I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name
those don't appear to be words of comfort
what is this "how dare you take 2+2 and get 4 I am outraged at your calumnies" shit
-
@jaffathecake @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs
> I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name
those don't appear to be words of comfort
what is this "how dare you take 2+2 and get 4 I am outraged at your calumnies" shit
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name because folks internally have said that. I expressed no discomfort with the name personally. I used it again in the poll post. I clearly have no personal issue with using it.
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name because folks internally have said that. I expressed no discomfort with the name personally. I used it again in the poll post. I clearly have no personal issue with using it.
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs in fact, someone internally questioned me using "kill switch" in the post above, and I defended it, saying that a lot of folks I chatted to liked and understood the name.
Whilst it might not make it into Release Firefox, I think it's the right term to use in these discussions in the meantime.
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs in fact, someone internally questioned me using "kill switch" in the post above, and I defended it, saying that a lot of folks I chatted to liked and understood the name.
Whilst it might not make it into Release Firefox, I think it's the right term to use in these discussions in the meantime.
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs I did not say I was personally uncomfortable with the term, because I am not personally uncomfortable with the term.
Please do not let your imagination run wild with this.
-
@scribe I'm not sure cookies are a great source of inspiration when it comes to privacy
@firefoxwebdevs In the context of granular control they're quite good though? ie I can accept/delete them per domain as I like. I voted for the middle option as the only granular option, but granularity can be more fine-grained than that, is what I mean. And privacy is all about control over the granularity. Time-limited access tokens with very specific permissions are maybe a better analogy.
-
@davidgerard @mdavis @firefoxwebdevs I did not say I was personally uncomfortable with the term, because I am not personally uncomfortable with the term.
Please do not let your imagination run wild with this.
@jaffathecake @davidgerard @mdavis@mastodon.social @firefoxwebdevs this is a real weird hill for you to die on
if you’re representing your employer and they’re uncomfortable with the kill switch naming, to the point where you keep encasing the term in scare quotes every time it’s used, then we can’t tell and frankly don’t care if you personally love the term. nobody’s here for Jake. do you understand that? we’re here because we’re dedicated Firefox users angry at the direction your employer has taken.
-
@jaffathecake @davidgerard @mdavis@mastodon.social @firefoxwebdevs this is a real weird hill for you to die on
if you’re representing your employer and they’re uncomfortable with the kill switch naming, to the point where you keep encasing the term in scare quotes every time it’s used, then we can’t tell and frankly don’t care if you personally love the term. nobody’s here for Jake. do you understand that? we’re here because we’re dedicated Firefox users angry at the direction your employer has taken.
@zzt @jaffathecake @firefoxwebdevs this account will be shut down by the incoming AI CMO anyway as unauthorised marketing
