AI Integration Is Coming to Firefox(news.itsfoss.com)
news.itsfoss.com
AI Integration Is Coming to Firefox
https://news.itsfoss.com/firefox-ai-integration/
84 comments
How do I disable (or, better yet, delete) it?
I may be a luddite, but I neither want nor need this.
More terrible AI features to turn off. great.
Please noooooooooo
Firefox is bad now
Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices.
>Firefox is the third worst browser, unfortunately there are only three browsers and one is restricted to Apple devices.
So, first best? I concur!
So, first best? I concur!
Yea, I do think it’s the best browser and use it every day, but I don’t really love it, mostly it is just for lack of good options.
Browsers are in a bad spot nowadays. The web has been turned into this half-baked app platform, and as a result nobody makes a web browser to just, like, download and view documents.
Browsers are in a bad spot nowadays. The web has been turned into this half-baked app platform, and as a result nobody makes a web browser to just, like, download and view documents.
No, it's not. It's just not as good as it used to be.
Nobody hates Firefox more than Firefox users.
Wasn't able to read the whole article, but if this installs locally on my machine and can find a way to use my GPU to generate responses, I'm all in.
I was hoping there would be a choice, at the very least, for local LLM use, but alas, after reading the article, it appears that is not the case.
LadyBird is our only alternative.
Edit: Well and the FF forks that won't have AI. :P
LadyBird is our only alternative.
Edit: Well and the FF forks that won't have AI. :P
Personally I have a lot more hope for servo (which was restarted by ex/non-mozilla folks in 2023) than ladybird.
It's opt-in; the "alternative" is "don't turn the feature on".
(Though also yes it really should also let you pick the backend including a local API endpoint.)
(Though also yes it really should also let you pick the backend including a local API endpoint.)
support for ollama/open-ui would be ideal.
So this is semantic sugar for selecting text then pasting into chatGPT interface? What real advantage does it offer other than saving a click or two?
A lot of products are "semantic sugar" for saving a click or two. It's a big difference if something is included in an OS or app vs having to know about it, switch context to it and using it every time. Would you use reader mode if you always had to switch to another app and paste the content? Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar?
This applies for this AI feature, but also for any other feature in general.
This applies for this AI feature, but also for any other feature in general.
> Would you use reader mode if you always had to switch to another app and paste the content?
I don't use reader mode to begin with.
> Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar?
Absolutely -- that's what I currently do. I don't keep my bookmarks in the browser, because I want to be able to access them from any browser from anywhere. So I use an independent bookmark server instead. Adding a new bookmark takes three clicks (four if I have to manually browse to my server first).
It's a minor inconvenience that the benefits more than compensate for.
I don't use reader mode to begin with.
> Would you use bookmarks as often if you have to click 4 times instead of dragging it into the menu bar?
Absolutely -- that's what I currently do. I don't keep my bookmarks in the browser, because I want to be able to access them from any browser from anywhere. So I use an independent bookmark server instead. Adding a new bookmark takes three clicks (four if I have to manually browse to my server first).
It's a minor inconvenience that the benefits more than compensate for.
The point is not that nobody ever would reach to other workflows but that the majority of people will stick the defaults (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-power-of-defaults/) and also don't install a lot of third party apps.
HN is of course a very different bubble and very different to how regular people use computers or the internet.
HN is of course a very different bubble and very different to how regular people use computers or the internet.
Sure, but the question was posed to the readership here, not to the general public, so I answered.
It's true - for example for Chrome built in Google image search gets used way more than the old way of copying and pasting an image to another tab.
Librewolf will hopefully strip it out.
- https://librewolf.net (Firefox but with good defaults and bloat stripped out)
- https://librewolf.net (Firefox but with good defaults and bloat stripped out)
I second this. I'm so happy I switched to LibreWolf a few years ago. I get all of the benefits of the arkenfox user script, plus even more without having to install or maintain it myself, and in addition to that I get Pocket and various hardcoded telemetry, etc, being stripped out — I can trust them to turn Firefox into an actually good focused browser no matter what Mozilla does upstream.
Plus it doesn't go as far as Mulvad, which explicitly states that they intend down the road to start ignoring user's configuration settings in an effort to prevent users from making their browser more fingerprintable, instead of letting users decide what balance of usability and privacy they want (for instance, I still use Firefox Sync). That's fine for them to do, and I wish them the best to block, because they're not really taking away user freedom since someone can just use an alternative browser, but that's not something I want to use personally. LibreWolf lets me choose.
Plus it doesn't go as far as Mulvad, which explicitly states that they intend down the road to start ignoring user's configuration settings in an effort to prevent users from making their browser more fingerprintable, instead of letting users decide what balance of usability and privacy they want (for instance, I still use Firefox Sync). That's fine for them to do, and I wish them the best to block, because they're not really taking away user freedom since someone can just use an alternative browser, but that's not something I want to use personally. LibreWolf lets me choose.
Previously discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40786004
I have gotten into the habbit of removing any software with opt-in AI chatbots. I recently uninstalled iTerm2, and I fear Firefox will be next.
just curious, why is this the case?
I am not against AI in software per se (I like the ChatGPT desktop app), but I prefer not to have AI in tools where the primary use case is not related to AI. Specifically, I don't want to have to consider how the AI is being developed and integrated (e.g., whether my data is being used for training an LLM), and, in general, I prefer for my software to be a bit conservative in relation to new trends (being it anything from crypto to AI).
This is Opt-In. People really need to cool it with the Firefox hate.
We’ve all got enough history here to know that “opt-in” is a short step away from “opt-out”, which is a short step away from “we removed the toggle to simplify the user experience.” At this point any new “opt-in” feature in any piece of software or service is Chekhov's gun - all that announcement means is that at some point in the future I’m going to have to figure out how to remove this thing or replace this software or service.
It is understandably hard at this point to trust Firefox to do right things
Cool it with AI hate? Love Firefox, I don't understand slapping "AI" on a browser.
Just because you don’t want the feature doesn’t mean other don’t. I certainly would - assuming the implementation is privacy friendly
Ok, then install an extension for it? FF doesn't even come with ad-blocking yet which is useful to a lot more people.
>Ok, then install an extension for it?
Or build it in and people who don't want to use it don't?
Your stance of FF should only have the features I personally want and the features others want should be in extensions is frankly laughable
Or build it in and people who don't want to use it don't?
Your stance of FF should only have the features I personally want and the features others want should be in extensions is frankly laughable
To me it is just usual Firefox behaviour chasing some trend or other. Adding features for sake of adding features. I wonder what is the over-under when this feature will be deprecated...
Do you, honestly, not see the benefits of LLMs, particularly in a browser?
If this was them bringing over window.ai from Chrome I'd say it would be good. I love the offline translation they added, and wouldn't mind something similar for LLM. But having a separate panel that's just basically chatgpt & co isn't impressive.
I'd much prefer an offline capable, leaner LLM that lets web devs do cool stuff.
I'd much prefer an offline capable, leaner LLM that lets web devs do cool stuff.
I honestly don't. I do understand that others see benefits in it, but I don't really understand why.
What benefits do you think others see in it, and why do you think they're not benefits?
I'm not certain what benefits others actually get, but what I hear most often is translation and summaries.
I need translation rarely enough that it doesn't matter if the browser does it or not, and I have no interest at all in summaries of websites.
I need translation rarely enough that it doesn't matter if the browser does it or not, and I have no interest at all in summaries of websites.
Do you, honestly, not see the benefits of blockchain, particularly in a browser?
I get that a lot of people on HN won't like this, but I don't think FF really has a choice here. If they want to compete with mainstream browsers, they'll need to integrate the features they will support to avoid losing existing users and keep attracting new ones. If they weren't losing the browser war already, they'd have more leeway I think.
Firefox has 0% chance in competing with Google/Microsoft/Apple on their terms. The only chance of Firefox gaining market share is focusing on offering something unique, ideally something the big three are unwilling to offer: something that empowers the user instead of third-parties.
What mainstream browser features would I miss?
Of all the AI-related stuff, I'm only aware of natural language translation bring integrated.
Some ML but not "AI" stuff, like OCR and detecting QR codes on pictures could be nice, too.
But not ChatGPT, right? Right?
Of all the AI-related stuff, I'm only aware of natural language translation bring integrated.
Some ML but not "AI" stuff, like OCR and detecting QR codes on pictures could be nice, too.
But not ChatGPT, right? Right?
There's also plenty of applications for local models integrated with a browser - such as language translations without needing to send the text off to google.
proper service worker, PWAs and file system API support would be much better to attract and keep users, imo. And just get back to implement modern web APIs in general.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it sounds like they're doing this the right way.
I want to be able to run a local model using something like VLLM or FastChat, then be able to call it from a context menu. No obnoxious toolbar taking up the UI like Edge, just access to use the tools I'm running when I need them.
That's what this appears to be - not a case of a specific AI service being shoved in anyone's face.
I want to be able to run a local model using something like VLLM or FastChat, then be able to call it from a context menu. No obnoxious toolbar taking up the UI like Edge, just access to use the tools I'm running when I need them.
That's what this appears to be - not a case of a specific AI service being shoved in anyone's face.
AI models however are pretty big so its going to make the browser installation a lot bigger even if its only pulled down when you first go to use the feature.
"testing AI integration with its development build"
Keyword "testing" and "development build". Maybe before uninstalling consider the possibility that it doesn't make it into the production build or only behind some opt-in. One of the perks of open source development is that you can see things progressing before they are finalized.
Keyword "testing" and "development build". Maybe before uninstalling consider the possibility that it doesn't make it into the production build or only behind some opt-in. One of the perks of open source development is that you can see things progressing before they are finalized.
AI has come to firefox. In the very sensible form of integrated local translation.
If this chatgpt's website embedded into firefox's UI comes to firefox I might just have to find a different browser though. It's just an obscene giant embedded ad for a company.
If this chatgpt's website embedded into firefox's UI comes to firefox I might just have to find a different browser though. It's just an obscene giant embedded ad for a company.
How is it an ad? The article says it gives you a choice of four competing products.
Public promotion of a product or service. It could be one. It could be four.
It's no different than when Mozilla began promoting certain websites, e.g., via "tiles". Around 2015, it formed a "Content Services" team to develop ideas around promotion and advertisement.^1 This included hiring an "advertising expert". IMHO it is strange for a web browser to be promoting specific content on the web but others might find it normal. The text-only browser I use does not do it, command line TCP/HTTP clients do not do it. Early graphical browsers did not do it. Regardless of whether it is appropriate or not, to deny that this is advertising is, to borrow the term from AI-speak, hallucination.
1. https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/comments/feed/
It's no different than when Mozilla began promoting certain websites, e.g., via "tiles". Around 2015, it formed a "Content Services" team to develop ideas around promotion and advertisement.^1 This included hiring an "advertising expert". IMHO it is strange for a web browser to be promoting specific content on the web but others might find it normal. The text-only browser I use does not do it, command line TCP/HTTP clients do not do it. Early graphical browsers did not do it. Regardless of whether it is appropriate or not, to deny that this is advertising is, to borrow the term from AI-speak, hallucination.
1. https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/comments/feed/
How is embedding a third party webpage in your product not an ad. Advertising multiple competing products doesn't make it any less of an ad. That's normal. Most places with advertising spots advertise multiple different things.
They way to make this not an ad would be to
1. Remove any and all branding, chatgpt should not be mentioned, hugging face should not be mentioned, openai should not be mentioned, etc.
2. Make there be no way to pay for it.
That's what they did with translation, where they embedded something actually useful and not just a webpage into the UI in a way that a browser extension easily could if people actually wanted this "feature".
They way to make this not an ad would be to
1. Remove any and all branding, chatgpt should not be mentioned, hugging face should not be mentioned, openai should not be mentioned, etc.
2. Make there be no way to pay for it.
That's what they did with translation, where they embedded something actually useful and not just a webpage into the UI in a way that a browser extension easily could if people actually wanted this "feature".
Would prefer the option to ALSO ask something about entire article via keyboard and sidebar
Summarizing huge blocks of text is a very useful feature of the LLMs, why are HN users so angry about this?
Probably because it integrates with cloud AI providers, and the kind of person who uses Firefox probably has strong opinions about their browser integrating with a proprietary 3rd-party service and sending personal data to it.
yeah, but it is opt-in. and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button?
I absolutely hate that it comes with search integration by default. Especially that it is in the URL bar instead of a separate text box.
I'm also not a fan of DNS over HTTPs, malware protection, and telemetry. I don't want my web browser sending any extra traffic anywhere I'm not expecting.
I'm also not a fan of DNS over HTTPs, malware protection, and telemetry. I don't want my web browser sending any extra traffic anywhere I'm not expecting.
> yeah, but it is opt-in.
I agree that that helps.
> and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button?
Yes, I am absolutely annoyed that Firefox defaults to searching with Google, and much more so that it defaults to sending text from the search+URL bar before executing the search. Though I suppose on the basis that Mozilla does need to fund Firefox development, I would be more willing to give them a tiny bit of slack if Hugging Face or whoever is paying to be the default AI.
I agree that that helps.
> and even if it was defaulted to enabled, firefox already has a "search google for" in the right click menu which also sends selected text to a third party... were people upset with that button?
Yes, I am absolutely annoyed that Firefox defaults to searching with Google, and much more so that it defaults to sending text from the search+URL bar before executing the search. Though I suppose on the basis that Mozilla does need to fund Firefox development, I would be more willing to give them a tiny bit of slack if Hugging Face or whoever is paying to be the default AI.
How is that a useful feature when you have to read the summary and the text to ensure there wasn't a hallucination. It has net increased how long it takes.
Chrome Dev Channel comes with a Gemini Nano model too.[1]
A text model will certainly be useful, but where it really gets crazy is when you imagine something like:
You could even imagine a source set to display the generated image only on devices with low bandwidth connections or as a preview until the real image is loaded.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-4Ylipjoo
A text model will certainly be useful, but where it really gets crazy is when you imagine something like:
<img model="moz-img-v6" temperature="0" src="An old man with a beard and a funny hat."/>
You could even imagine a source set to display the generated image only on devices with low bandwidth connections or as a preview until the real image is loaded.
srcset="An old man with a beard and a funny hat., /img/old-man.jpg 2x"
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-4Ylipjoo
I think we're at least a decade away from generating images being cheap enough that it makes sense to generate them on end users device them instead of generating them once and sending the bits over the wire.
Ah yes, another article examining an experimental feature as if it's in its final release UI already. Very... helpful?
I'm not happy about the concept, but as long as I can turn it all off (or just not turn it on) I'm not tooooooo upset about it. I just think implementing it is a waste of time when I've yet to see a thing done by an LLM that seemed worth the effort.
Unless a local model can do website translation with decent accuracy. That could be cool.
I'm not happy about the concept, but as long as I can turn it all off (or just not turn it on) I'm not tooooooo upset about it. I just think implementing it is a waste of time when I've yet to see a thing done by an LLM that seemed worth the effort.
Unless a local model can do website translation with decent accuracy. That could be cool.
Does anyone remember how Netscape tried to expand the browser by adding email, news, an html editor, a calendar and other stuff?
This reminds me of that strategy.
And does anyone remember how Chrome killed Internet Explorer? By making a slim, fast and standard compliant browser without any bells and whistles.
I wish Firefox would focus on making the browser a great basis for software that runs in it. And leave the development of applications and tools to websites and plugins.
That Firefox does not support the file system access API makes Firefox users have a really clunky load+save experience in web apps for example. This is the reason I use Chrome and suggest using Chrome to the users of my software. Not because Firefox has to few bells and whistles.
This reminds me of that strategy.
And does anyone remember how Chrome killed Internet Explorer? By making a slim, fast and standard compliant browser without any bells and whistles.
I wish Firefox would focus on making the browser a great basis for software that runs in it. And leave the development of applications and tools to websites and plugins.
That Firefox does not support the file system access API makes Firefox users have a really clunky load+save experience in web apps for example. This is the reason I use Chrome and suggest using Chrome to the users of my software. Not because Firefox has to few bells and whistles.
I have been using mozilla browsers pretty much since they started. Hell, I used them before mozilla started if you count netscape.
I have been quick to forgive all the bad moves they have made in the last decade, but it’s clear that they have been chasing what they think average people want. while making the overall experience worse.
I know people are saying it’s opt-in, but if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin?
Except for a brief stint with konqeror in 2004, this is the first time I am seriously considering switching away for my daily driver. I just have no idea what the current browser landscape looks like.
I have been quick to forgive all the bad moves they have made in the last decade, but it’s clear that they have been chasing what they think average people want. while making the overall experience worse.
I know people are saying it’s opt-in, but if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin?
Except for a brief stint with konqeror in 2004, this is the first time I am seriously considering switching away for my daily driver. I just have no idea what the current browser landscape looks like.
> if it’s going to be opt-in anyway, why not just make it be a plugin?
Because Firefox neutered the plugin system too much for that to be viable.
It's such a shame, too. They have added all sorts of things to the mainline browser that really should be plugins. They have abandoned the idea that the browser itself should be lean, and users should be able to add whatever bells and whistles they prefer in the form of plugins.
Because Firefox neutered the plugin system too much for that to be viable.
It's such a shame, too. They have added all sorts of things to the mainline browser that really should be plugins. They have abandoned the idea that the browser itself should be lean, and users should be able to add whatever bells and whistles they prefer in the form of plugins.
What part of this exactly do you think is not possible with a standard firefox extension? I don't see anything.
Even if I'm missing something, firefox has a history of creating new APIs to allow extensions to do things that they want done, for instance with the container tabs extension. That, frankly, is the only remotely acceptable way to incorporate branded third party AIs into the browser.
Even if I'm missing something, firefox has a history of creating new APIs to allow extensions to do things that they want done, for instance with the container tabs extension. That, frankly, is the only remotely acceptable way to incorporate branded third party AIs into the browser.
> What part of this exactly do you think is not possible with a standard firefox extension?
I don't know, because I don't know exactly what that functionality does. My comment was really more general: since the plugin system changed, there are quite a lot of things that are no longer possible or are no longer possible in a non-clunky way.
My assumption is that if it could have been done as an extension, it would have been. That the reason they build all these things into the mainline browser is because it's not possible to do them (or do them well enough) as extensions.
> firefox has a history of creating new APIs to allow extensions to do things that they want done
Kinda, but that's a very high friction path that can't be relied on. If the extension system doesn't currently have functionality that is needed to accomplish a thing, there's no point in starting to develop the thing until that functionality is added. That functionality won't be added unless there is a great deal of demand for it to begin with. That leads to a chicken-and-egg situation where there can't be provable demand without an implementation showing people want it, but you can't have an implementation without proving demand enough that Mozilla will bother to support it.
I don't know, because I don't know exactly what that functionality does. My comment was really more general: since the plugin system changed, there are quite a lot of things that are no longer possible or are no longer possible in a non-clunky way.
My assumption is that if it could have been done as an extension, it would have been. That the reason they build all these things into the mainline browser is because it's not possible to do them (or do them well enough) as extensions.
> firefox has a history of creating new APIs to allow extensions to do things that they want done
Kinda, but that's a very high friction path that can't be relied on. If the extension system doesn't currently have functionality that is needed to accomplish a thing, there's no point in starting to develop the thing until that functionality is added. That functionality won't be added unless there is a great deal of demand for it to begin with. That leads to a chicken-and-egg situation where there can't be provable demand without an implementation showing people want it, but you can't have an implementation without proving demand enough that Mozilla will bother to support it.
The chicken and egg problem doesn't apply when it's mozilla developing the extension, they can add support for it because they want to add support for it with no proven demand...
True, but they don't seem to.
Perhaps the problem is that they no longer think that a slim, modular browser is a desirable thing, then. I don't know. All I know is what it looks like from the outside.
Perhaps the problem is that they no longer think that a slim, modular browser is a desirable thing, then. I don't know. All I know is what it looks like from the outside.
Yeah, things have been downhill since they killed the old plugin system. Though I think this should be possible with the current plugins.
I understand the security problems with the old way, but they could have spent all these years working on a sandbox with granular permissions.
But for something like this they could make a system that only works with their own official plugins. tie the plugin versions to browser versions, and include the hashes of every plugin. people could install whichever ones they want, and malicious plugins wouldn’t be able to just drop in without also editing the browser binary.
Im sure there are a million other ways too, but designing a secure plugin system for first party software is so much easier than one for third party software.
I understand the security problems with the old way, but they could have spent all these years working on a sandbox with granular permissions.
But for something like this they could make a system that only works with their own official plugins. tie the plugin versions to browser versions, and include the hashes of every plugin. people could install whichever ones they want, and malicious plugins wouldn’t be able to just drop in without also editing the browser binary.
Im sure there are a million other ways too, but designing a secure plugin system for first party software is so much easier than one for third party software.
Why not make literally every feature of the browser a plugin?
That's basically what Uzbl was:
https://www.uzbl.org/
https://github.com/uzbl/uzbl
https://www.uzbl.org/
https://github.com/uzbl/uzbl
It certainly seems like a thing that could be done just as easily with an extension, instead of building it in.
> They also point out that it follows the principles of user choice, agency, and privacy, by being optional,
Yeah, no. FF doesn’t believe in those principles; anyone savvy installing FF knows they have to dig through settings to turn off a bunch of shit, and delete Google as the default. It’s optional now whilst they test it and then it’ll be on by default.
Yeah, no. FF doesn’t believe in those principles; anyone savvy installing FF knows they have to dig through settings to turn off a bunch of shit, and delete Google as the default. It’s optional now whilst they test it and then it’ll be on by default.
FN1. ?