Mozilla under fire for Firefox AI "bloat" that blows up CPU and drains battery
-
There's a lot of negativity from certain users/communities on software/services that are mostly good but have imperfections. I rarely if ever see any recommendations for alternatives that actually make sense when this happens.
Firefox and Proton are two very common targets. Sure, they are both not perfect, but they are both offering a solution that does not enrich the current oppressive market leader and they do a pretty solid job at it.
Yes, flaws deserve to be criticized, but there's such a thing as too much.
It's tiring.
Purists being copted by shadowy corpo astroturfing campaigns, name a more iconic duo.
-
where is this AI bloat exactly? I use Firefox every day and see no difference
Same here, I'm on 141.0 Linux. No tab grouping unless I group them. I do see the ai button but have not bothered with it.
-
where is this AI bloat exactly? I use Firefox every day and see no difference
wrote last edited by [email protected]I remember tab groups showing up one day by themselves maybe a week ago, and then I quickly clicked about two buttons and now they're totally gone and I almost forgot they were a thing. But likely if I had summarily clicked 2 different buttons it might have been turned on without me realizing it, and that would cause the model to be downloaded and the CPU cycles to be spent (at least if I kept the tab groups on)
-
Honestly if that is it, it is understandable. This AI nonsense, however, is plainly a waste of money and resources, Mozilla's and their users'.
Depends what you mean by this AI nonsense. Some of it is great. Offline translation in Firefox is great, as is the enhanced screen reader for blind people.
Chat bot integration less so, but it's opt-in so I don't bother getting myself worked up about it.
-
Why not add this features as browser extension?
Extending and managing extension APIs and extensions also comes at a cost. I certainly wouldn't be against that - but I'm not familiar with the technical details or cost of the features involved.
-
Because people seem to have a special hate boner for Firefox on here.
And please don't call me bro.
Edit: hate not hat
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.
-
Right, I sympathize with that.
…But also it’s ridiculous. Like why should including a feature with “AI” in it get them VC money? Even if that’s kinda reality?
TBH they should just become a contributor to llama.cpp and market that somehow.
Like why should including a feature with “AI” in it get them VC money?
Spoken like someone who's never interacted with Silicon Valley VCs... just imagine someone with tons of a money, a moderately competent business background, and very little understanding of even the basics of technology that you and I take for granted. And then make them stupid and greedy.
"AI? Yes please! Here's some money, I've heard of Firefox so I know you're good for it." It's not really any more complicated than that, I don't think.
-
Like why should including a feature with “AI” in it get them VC money?
Spoken like someone who's never interacted with Silicon Valley VCs... just imagine someone with tons of a money, a moderately competent business background, and very little understanding of even the basics of technology that you and I take for granted. And then make them stupid and greedy.
"AI? Yes please! Here's some money, I've heard of Firefox so I know you're good for it." It's not really any more complicated than that, I don't think.
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.
-
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.
