other.li Forum

@240185 I've already used the results of this poll to push for change in the AI kill switch. The feedback was massively appreciated.

@jesterchen @duke_of_germany ah, I thought was well understood to mean "I don't know/care, I just want to see the results". It's pretty commonly used, but clearly not commonly enough. Sorry!

@rowmyboat assuming a kill switch is landing (which it is), do you disagree with the results of the poll?

@espadrine I personally agree with you, but most respondents to the poll do not. It seems like, if the AI switch did not disable translations, folks would not have trust in the setting.

@Abigyil I've already used the results of this poll to push for change in the AI kill switch feature. The feedback has been really useful, and I'm grateful for it.

@mu @noah that's why I wanted to make sure we got this detail right.

@noah a lot of folks have (reasonable imo) concerns around how these models are trained. I'm not sure how much of that applies to the translation models, but feelings count here.

@scribe I'm not sure cookies are a great source of inspiration when it comes to privacy

@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.

@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.

@mdavis it's definitely a complicated topic! I guess it's down to us to figure out a model that best serves most people, while providing options to cover the rest.

@joepie91 they will be opt-in, but different people have different opinions about what that means. For us, it means models won't be downloaded or data sent to models without the user's request.

However, some folks have said the only meaningful opt-in would be a separate binary for the browser-with-AI, or even having to compiling it manually.

@chillicampari @joepie91 fwiw I asked about translation because we're figuring out what to do specifically about translation.

@mdavis I believe it's a moral stance due to how the models were produced.

@mdavis folks want to disable 'AI' for more reasons than privacy. Privacy is important of course, but folks are also concerned about the training data, and energy used for the training.

@joepie91 I think a lot of people in the replies would consider this sneaky. It's a tricky UX problem. But yes, granular control needs to be part of the solution, along with a kill switch.

@malte there will be granular options for this stuff. The question is about the non-granular "kill switch".

@joepie91 yeah, I agree with all that, but even tech folks are asking for a way to 'get rid of AI'. I'm pretty certain if we tried to redefine what they're asking for, it would be received poorly.

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?

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.

…