Mozilla under fire for Firefox AI "bloat" that blows up CPU and drains battery
-
Just use a fork. I don't know why I would use vanilla Firefox when there are so many great forks out there that have cool extra features.
Forks get security patches with delay so I prefer to use vanilla Firefox and just disable the things I don't like, it's not much work.
-
where is this AI bloat exactly? I use Firefox every day and see no difference
There is none, this is all AI=bad knee-jerk reaction. From what I can tell, so far Firefox has 3 ML-based systems implemented:
- Site / text translation - fully local, small model, requires manual action from user
- Tab grouping suggestions - fully local, small model, requires manual action from user
- Image alt text generation (when adding images to a PDF) - fully local, small model, looks like it's enabled by default but can be turned off directly in the modal that appears when adding alt text
All of these models are small enough to be quickly run locally on mobile devices with minimal wait time. The CPU spikes appear to be a bug in the inference module implementation - not an intended behavior.
Firefox also provides UI for connecting to cloud-based chatbots on a sidebar, but they need to be manually enabled to be used. The sidebar is also customizable so anyone who doesn't want this button there can just remove it. There's also a setting in about:config that removes it harder.
I actually really like the way Mozilla is introducing these features. I recently had to visit another country's post office site and having the ability to just instantly translate it directly on my device is great.
-
Well, exactly. Then why the pretense?
They could contribute to some existing local inference effort, do actually useful dev work, and slap their brand on it. It would both be cheaper and "look" better to VCs.
Basically do what ollama's doing but less shady.
Yeah. There would be a way to do it that I feel like might potentially be useful. The described method (doing clustering instead of just having a similarity threshold to group tabs together, vectorizing the entire tab title through a whole fucking network instead of just tokenizing it and calling two tabs similar if they have uncommon tokens that are within a certain similarity level) really sounds to me like people who have no real idea what they're doing, just being "ML experts" all over the codebase and fucking things up, and probably walking away very proud of themselves while helping themselves to bunches and bunches of the Mozilla Foundation's Google-money.
-
Just use a fork. I don't know why I would use vanilla Firefox when there are so many great forks out there that have cool extra features.
i use user js
-
People won't pay for that. Or, at least, not enough people.
We literally saw this play out with media. Everyone hated cable tv. Suddenly we had netflix (2.0) where we can "pay for what I want". Except... then everyone got in on that because apparently we want things beyond Netflix Original Pictures and whatever they could get cheap out of Korea.
And now? "Ugh, there are juts so many services. I need like twelve. I wish there was one big bundle of everything".
Not exactly the same but a premium browser (that, again, isn't going to make anywhere near enough money to fund development) would be dropped even faster than the guy whose patreon is still "pay one dollar per episode"
What about Wikipeida? Internet Archive? All of the products/services that live on kickstarter/patreon/gofundme/etc?
People are more than willing to pay for the things that they love, but Mozilla knows that people wouldn't be willing to pay enough to continue floating the Executive salaries. That's why they don't transition.
-
then why the fuck is this newsworthy? ugh. Why is there such a huge hateboner for firefox lately?
Because they keep betraying their supposed values for short-term gains.
-
It's not as simple as just deciding to hire people at lower rates of pay.
Cost cutting is a tricky game. When an organisation is not on a positive trajectory, cost cutting has a very high risk of re-enforcing the underlying problems.
That's not to say cost cutting isn't a worthy objective, but it needs to be carefully considered.
If you want a CEO with the right skills and connections you need to pay.
But they have a strong history of paying a lot for CEOs that don't have the right skills and connections. It's not just this one, it's a systemic issue for them.
-
Why would an organisation choose to over spend on executive salaries?
Obviously, it's because thats what it costs to get people with the right skills.
But these executives clearly don't have the right skills, so they should get less pay.
-
What about Wikipeida? Internet Archive? All of the products/services that live on kickstarter/patreon/gofundme/etc?
People are more than willing to pay for the things that they love, but Mozilla knows that people wouldn't be willing to pay enough to continue floating the Executive salaries. That's why they don't transition.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The orgs that are heavily dependent on federal funding as well as major corporate investors? That run the websites that the vast majority of people just think is free?
Again, we've seen how this plays out with Patreon et al. Everyone says it is totally viable because the ridiculously popular people make bank. And as more and more celebrities flock to it, there is less and less money for the "small creators" and so forth.
Also, Firefox and Thunderbird are backed by the Mozilla Foundation which is already doing exactly that.
-
The orgs that are heavily dependent on federal funding as well as major corporate investors? That run the websites that the vast majority of people just think is free?
Again, we've seen how this plays out with Patreon et al. Everyone says it is totally viable because the ridiculously popular people make bank. And as more and more celebrities flock to it, there is less and less money for the "small creators" and so forth.
Also, Firefox and Thunderbird are backed by the Mozilla Foundation which is already doing exactly that.
I feel like I'm mis-understanding your argument. Are you saying that Mozilla can't do things that other groups are already successfully doing, because "The popular people make too much money" doing it, and "They are already getting that via the Mozilla Foundation"?
That doesn't make sense to me.
-
I feel like I'm mis-understanding your argument. Are you saying that Mozilla can't do things that other groups are already successfully doing, because "The popular people make too much money" doing it, and "They are already getting that via the Mozilla Foundation"?
That doesn't make sense to me.
The point is that they are already doing what those orgs are doing. They are dealing with a userbase that doesn't want to give them money by getting large amounts from special interest groups and corporations.
Which is why the Wikimedia (?) Foundation pushed REAL hard for AI until basically the entire editorbase told them to fuck off.
But hey? There is obviously infinite money so yeah, I am sure if Mozilla drops all those corporate interests and just switches to an optional patreon they would have even MORE money than they already do and would have no need to placate said special interests.
-
But they have a strong history of paying a lot for CEOs that don't have the right skills and connections. It's not just this one, it's a systemic issue for them.
On one hand you're correct in that their CEOs haven't been able to turn the situation around.
On the other hand it's hubris to suggest that you know better than whoever is doing the hiring.
-
The point is that they are already doing what those orgs are doing. They are dealing with a userbase that doesn't want to give them money by getting large amounts from special interest groups and corporations.
Which is why the Wikimedia (?) Foundation pushed REAL hard for AI until basically the entire editorbase told them to fuck off.
But hey? There is obviously infinite money so yeah, I am sure if Mozilla drops all those corporate interests and just switches to an optional patreon they would have even MORE money than they already do and would have no need to placate said special interests.
The userbase does want to give them money though. I constantly hear people say that they want to donate to Firefox, but Mozilla doesn't let them do that.
Also, I never said that Patreon would give them more money. It would be less money, but it would be more effective, as they could finally ditch the worthless exectutives that keep draining Mozilla's resources.
-
On one hand you're correct in that their CEOs haven't been able to turn the situation around.
On the other hand it's hubris to suggest that you know better than whoever is doing the hiring.
Lmao. Just straight up rich people worship up in here.
-
Lmao. Just straight up rich people worship up in here.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lmao. Just straight up idiots up in here.
-
Instead of trying to get Google money, I actually wish they would offer a monthly/annual/lifetime membership as the cost of not enshittifying to stay in business. And then severing ties with Google as a company.
A lot of tech companies are holding onto unsustainable business models from 10 years ago to make their products at a loss or "free," and it's forcing them into AI, oligarchy, or being beholden to oligarchs. End users paying a fair price to own the products they use is a better alternative than this because it puts the power back in our hands as opposed to tech bros and shareholders.
One a lifetime membership is not a sustainable business model .
Two people so not want to pay for stuff a small percentage might but the vast majority won't escpically when there is Chrome which is free.
The problem is everyone wants shit got free or 99 cents one time payment for life time upgrades. These are not sustainable business models. Then we complain why are their ads or whatever, well do you work for free? People have to make enough to live. -
Much like electricity, lazy boards seek the path of least resistence. What's easier, building a world-class browser and properly marketing it and maintaining profitability, or just setting your default search engine to "Google.com" and cashing the massive check?
At this point, there's very few people even left at Mozilla that could even reverse the trend. Go back and look at their past few years. Other than some minor activity to Firefox, almost all their initiatives are little side missions that last for a few years and then are sunset.
Stuck like Pocket, Mozilla Social, Firefox Send, Firefox OS, etc. The list goes on and on. They invest heavily in some flash in the pan initiative and then ax it off a few years later.
Like the cheap bastards people are they refuse to pay what software costs and here we are. People well not pay for stuff, or expect a one time fee for lifetime support. Software was better when we had released every x years and we just bought that. Want support and new features but new version.
-
Like the cheap bastards people are they refuse to pay what software costs and here we are. People well not pay for stuff, or expect a one time fee for lifetime support. Software was better when we had released every x years and we just bought that. Want support and new features but new version.
I've never paid for a browser in my life.
-
The userbase does want to give them money though. I constantly hear people say that they want to donate to Firefox, but Mozilla doesn't let them do that.
Also, I never said that Patreon would give them more money. It would be less money, but it would be more effective, as they could finally ditch the worthless exectutives that keep draining Mozilla's resources.
The userbase does want to give them money though
- Citation requested
- Good for the massive waves of people who want to give Mozilla money. They already can https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/?form=donate-header
It would be less money, but it would be more effective
Oh yeah. I LOVE when my boss tells me that I am going to get paid less but I will be more effective because of it. Oh, wait, no I don't.
Honestly? it sounds like you don't care about reality and just care about things being ideologically pure for you with the expectation that it will all work out. So... maybe try to educate yourself on any of all this before trying to have a discussion about it?
-
The userbase does want to give them money though
- Citation requested
- Good for the massive waves of people who want to give Mozilla money. They already can https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/?form=donate-header
It would be less money, but it would be more effective
Oh yeah. I LOVE when my boss tells me that I am going to get paid less but I will be more effective because of it. Oh, wait, no I don't.
Honestly? it sounds like you don't care about reality and just care about things being ideologically pure for you with the expectation that it will all work out. So... maybe try to educate yourself on any of all this before trying to have a discussion about it?
Citation requested
Do some searching here, on reddit, etc. You'll find it.
Good for the massive waves of people who want to give Mozilla money. They already can https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/?form=donate-header
That's not what I said. I said that they wanted to donate to Firefox, not Mozilla. I find it very telling that Mozilla doesn't let them do that, but insteads forces people to donate to the org, that overpays it's executives.
Oh yeah. I LOVE when my boss tells me that I am going to get paid less but I will be more effective because of it. Oh, wait, no I don't.
Who said that the people who are actually working on Firefox would get paid less? I certainly didn't. I clearly said that the useless executives would get paid less
Honestly? it sounds like you don't care about reality and just care about things being ideologically pure for you with the expectation that it will all work out. So... maybe try to educate yourself on any of all this before trying to have a discussion about it?
I have. But you clearly didn't read what I posted. If you aren't going to address the things that I wrote, why comment?
