After the controversial news shared earlier this week by Mozilla’s new CEO that Firefox will evolve into “a modern AI browser,” the company now revealed it is working on an AI kill switch for the open-source web browser.

On Tuesday, Anthony Enzor-DeMeo was named the new CEO of Mozilla Corporation, the company behind the beloved Firefox web browser used by almost all GNU/Linux distributions as the default browser.

In his message as new CEO, Anthony Enzor-DeMeo stated that Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software while remaining the company’s anchor, and that Firefox will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.

What was not made clear is that Firefox will also ship with an AI kill switch that will let users completely disable all the AI features that are included in Firefox. Mozilla shared this important update earlier today to make it clear to everyone that Firefox will still be a trusted web browser.

top 69 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 338 points 10 months ago (44 children)

Why not just ship it without any of the AI stuff and give users the option to install and use it instead of bloating the application? This also confirms that the stuff is essentially OPT OUT instead of OPT IN

  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    The bubble is AI and they want some of that bubble investor money is my guess, so they put optional AI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    "On by default unless you run down a setting buried in a menu" is the thinnest type of optional in computing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    It’s like saying cosmic is optional on Pop_OS.

    Sure, you can rip it out if you really try.. but is it really optional?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Have you attempted to turn of AI in Firefox? It's literally like two checkboxes and it's off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago

    In their defense a very tiny percentage of users even open options and of those an even smaller actually change stuff.

    Maybe slighlty different for Firefox as probably more power user use it than other random programs. But basically if something is not enabled by default, it doesn't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    And also ..... will the kill switch turn off the AI entirely ... or partially? Since the AI system is baked in, will elements of it still operate in the background even if you turn off the switch?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    Not sure what you mean by "will it operate in the background"? The current (and planned) features collect no data. They "operate" when you use them. Disabling them will remove them from the UI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    lol .... so they won't change how they function ... just remove them from sight

    out of sight, out of mind, right?

    Whenever I trust big corporations ... or even big organizations with a lot of power in their hands ... it's never usually good for common people like me and you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    What he wrote doesn't seem ambiguous on this at all. But we'll see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    You can not push the button that says AI.

    You can also hit the kill switch that completely removes that button.

    That's opt-in enough.

    If it starts reading pages or doing things without you pushing a button, that's an issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    If it starts reading pages or doing things without you pushing a button, that's an issue.

    And therein lies the rub. The question is whether or not people trust that it won't be doing that regardless of whether or not you hit the kill switch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    This should just have been an extension. Having this as a core integration makes the browser have more surface area for attack.

    If compromised, it won't be an easy fix like disabling/removing an extension.

    Looks like execs behind closed doors are just trying to water down the Firefox brand until it's hollow and then jump ship.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    All AI features will also be opt-in. I think there are some grey areas in what 'opt-in' means to different people (e.g. is a new toolbar button opt-in?), but the kill switch will absolutely remove all that stuff, and never show it in future. That's unambiguous.

    Sounds like they will be opt in, not opt out

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago* (11 children)

    No, go deeper into that mastodon thread.

    The dev has a really hinky defention of "opt-in" thats basically "yes we push all this on by default and realize it will be the norm for most of our users because of that, but you technically dont have to interact with it so thats opt-in."

    Somehow, eventually having a buried menu option that "opts out" of AI is also part of how it will be opt-in as well? Its a self serving mess of rationaliztions and doublethink, no matter the claim on the tin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    I mean yeah, that's a fair point, and the dev said that themselves, that the definition of opt in is ambiguous. The definition they seem to use is that AI won't run unless you explicitly tell it to, and I think that's ok. There'll be a button that you can press to do some AI action and you can hide it using the kill switch.

    I do hope the kill switch isn't hidden behind 5 layers of menus

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (8 children)

    Thats not ambuguity. AI will be opt out in firefox, which is them abandoning core principles like user choice and privacy.

    They can do that, but playing like they aren't by redefining well established terms in UI/UX is disengenious, and cuts right through the "we will earn your trust back" messaging made by the same dev.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    I think it's quite clear there's ambiguity (hence this discussion). How would you define opt in? Should a user not even see the button for an opt in feature?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I think the big defining question is what will the AI features that they will implement do exactly and how will they run. If it's something that runs in the background (even as unintrusive as the summaries on a search engine like DDG), then it's opt out by default as it's constantly running whether you want it to or not. If it specifically and exclusively runs when you hit the button to activate it and doesn't run at any other time, then I'd say it's unequivocally opt in. And regardless of what a company says that their software will do, at this point I won't believe it until somebody has done a full teardown and discerned what exactly it does behind the scenes. I've seen enough nonsense like the Epic Games Store accessing your browser history and recording keyboard inputs or whatever the other absurd incident was.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    In my opinion there is no ambiguity at all.
    Opt-in means that the feature is disabled by default and until the user enables it. This is NOT what Firefox will be doing.
    Opt-out means that the feature is enabled by default and can be disabled by the user. This is what Firefox will be doing.
    Whether the user actually uses or not the feature is not a factor in determining if it is opt-in or opt-out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    So if you never press the AI button, it's never enabled. It is opt-in in the strictest semantic sense.
    What you say here applies for things that run automatically, like the anonymous usage reports, which is opt out, not for things you activate yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    That's obviously not what enabled means, at all.

    If there is a button visible that executes a function when receiving a click, that feature is enabled.
    That does not mean that the feature is actively in use, of course. Enabled and active are different states for a program's functionality to be.

    I believe it's pretty easy to understand, there are people like me who don't want to have AI functions popping up in our browsers without explicit enabling on our part.
    I understand that you disagree, but it is not a difficult position to understand.

    You don't need to re-define opt-in and opt-out just because you support Mozilla in adding AI features to Firefox.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    And you can take approximately 3 seconds to click on the kill switch if you so desperately need not to see an AI button somewhere.
    Like I can understand (and I agree) the stance on AI in general, but this is just a knee jerk reaction. Your browsing experience is 99.9% unchanged even if there is a button somewhere...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    A feature that will not do anything unless you explicitly press a button to start using it is quite literally opt-in, though? Opt-in doesn't mean "I won't even know the feature exists without hunting through the settings". It just means that it won't start doing things without your consent. Presenting a way to provide that consent in a more visible place than buried deeply in the settings does not make it opt-out. It might be a bit annoying to you, but it has no effect on your user choice or privacy, especially if there's also a way to globally hide it and any other features like it, including new ones that might be added in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago

    Let's have a look at how it works now, so we don't need to speculate.

    When I configured Firefox for AI, I got to choose my LLM of choice. I chose Claude. Now, if I select some text, I get a context menu option that says "Ask Anthropic Claude", which branches into these options:

    • Summarize
    • Explain
    • Quiz me
    • Proofread
    • Remove Anthropic Claude

    Notice the last one? That's not a "buried" option. That's as front and center as the options to use it. Mind you, if I decide to not use it, then nothing happens. The only thing that's changed is that I now have an optional shortcut for LLM features that open in a sidebar instead of a new tab.

    Oh, the humanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (6 children)

    I don't see why there is a big outrage. Sure I'm not a fan of the AI features and I certainly will disable them but it's tot like they're forced upon me. Some people like (want) AI in the browser and good for them, this makes the browser better and easier to use for them. For me, it doesn't change my experience at all

    (Commented this separately on purpose)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I’ve been thinking the same thing. The online tech community is a very small part of a much larger pie and they need to serve multiple audiences. As long as it can be turned off and truly be off, who cares?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    People don't trust that it can be truly turned off and that it won't act maliciously in some way. That's really the crux of the whole saga. We're at a point where phone companies are getting survey results that say that 80% of users either don't care about AI nor use it or find that it actively makes their user experience worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Did those people forget this is am open source browser and they can actually check it's doing what it says it's doing?

    And if they're that paranoid that they don't trust the pre-compiled binaries, they can just compile them themselves.

    This discussion is completely absurd to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Quite honestly, I don't think the average person even knows what open source means. They just know that Mozilla, like every other company, is shoving AI into their product, and that AI has either been useless or actively harmful to their user experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 98 points 10 months ago* (21 children)

    Does anyone even talk about what the “AI features” are?

    Could I, liked recolor webpages? Automate ublock filters? Detect SEO/AI slop? Create a price/feature table out of a shopping page?

    See, this would all be neat like auto translate is neat.

    But I’m not really interested in the 7 millionth barebones chatbot UI. I’m not interested in loading a whole freaking LLM to auto name my tabs, or in some cutsie auto navigation agent experiment that still only works like 20% of the time with a 600B LLM, or a shopping chatbot that doesn’t do anything like Amazon/Perplexity.


    That’s the weird thing about all this. I’m not against neat features, but “AI!” is not a feature, and everyone is right to assume it will be some spam because that’s what 99% of everything AI is. But it’s like every CEO on Earth has caught the same virus and think a product with “AI” in the name is like a holy grail, regardless of functionality.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

    You reminded me that one use for AI I'd really like is removing all photos of Trump, Musk and Putin from my screen. Another is filtering the twenty reposts of every event in US politics and the incessant whining about prices. Alas, I need these in phone apps more than the browser.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You don’t need LLMs for that. An iPhone is plenty powerful enough for image recognition and text classification.

    That’s sorta the funny thing about AI. There’s tons of potential, but it’s just unimplemented. Even on PC, you pretty much have to have some Nvidia GPU and fight pip setting up python repos to get anything working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That stuff is commonly included in the AI umbrella.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Eh, I draw a distinction between oldschool visual recognition and matching some keywords, versus full-blown LLMs. I used 'AI' to mean the latter in my comment above, as intended by the post itself. I also have doubts about the effectiveness of the older approaches in regard to the uses that I mentioned.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I’d like a AI feature that bounces back on any ads or intrusive crap including propaganda. But AI is being pushed by the same people so if it happens it won’t be genuine and it will just evolve to give the illusion of not being pushed.

    FF, any browser, any social media platform , I can select ‘I don’t wanna see this’ or go adjust settings to disable but nah, an update later and it’s back, or it comes back under another form.

    It’s still manipulation. And I can’t trust it to manipulate ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    you don't even need AI for that and can do it on your phone. Piefeed for example asks you when initially setting up an account "Hey do you want to see stuff about Trump, Musk, etc? no? cool we won't show you that" and that's it. works great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 28 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    The term snake oil is actually especially fitting for this, due to its origins.

    In Britain in the 1700s there was a somewhat common recommendation for using rattlesnake oil from the fat of the snake for skin diseases/rheumatism. The efficacy is debated but it's got some amount of potential for change (if not help).

    This turned into people in the US selling mineral oil as "snake oil" as a total panacea. So a product that actually could do stuff being used as the poster child for a completely useless product that can solve every issue ever, buy as much as you can today.

    Snake oil indeed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (7 children)
    • AI chatbot in sidebar (you can choose which chatbot you want, similar to how you choose default search engine)
    • Shake to summarize page (on mobile)
    • AI Window (separate from Normal and Private window, upcoming). Apparently it lets you chat with an AI agent to power-browse the internet.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    The last feature is the mildly interesting one, but in my experience just not useful enough to do much, even on specific browsing finetunes or augmented APIs.

    I guess shake to summarize is mildly interesting, but not really? I simply can’t trust it. And I can just paste the (much more concise) relevant text into a chat window and get a much better answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I agree. They're quite vague about what the feature would actually do, and I have a hard time believing that I would use it.

    I think it would probably be wiser spending time and effort on other things (like a really good built-in Dark mode or better memory management), but I don't fault them for experimenting. Worst case scenario they make something that sucks and either remove it later, or you can fork it off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Does anyone even talk about what the “AI features” are?

    The one I use the most is their offline translation. I don't have to send my data to Google Translate.

    My sister (blind) uses the new screen reader stuff a lot.

    Mozilla is certainly adding good AI features, but the chatbot integration isn't something I have much use for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Translation and screen reader have been a solved thing for a while, no “AI” browser necessary. I’m all for nice features, but bolting in a chat bot that phones home with activity data ain’t one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Could I, liked recolor webpages? Automate ublock filters? Detect SEO/AI slop?

    This is an excellent point: there are potential features I wouldn't mind trying out. But of course those features aren't available, because aren't the features that Mozilla leadership's buddies in tech are pushing, and often work against what big tech wants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago

    Or they could just ship it without the AI

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    16 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post