Firefox uses on-device downloaded-on-demand ML models for privacy-preserving translation.
-
@flxtr @firefoxwebdevs as someone who used these in the early 2000s: no, it's not. It's not as good as DeepL, but it's worlds ahead of machine translation in the 2000s.
@funkylab @flxtr @firefoxwebdevs there's no such thing as good machine translation
-
@jaffathecake @Fnordinger I do! my source is this thread and the thread linked in the OP: https://wandering.shop/@xgranade/115772870672213549 category IV is the most relevant one but you’ll want to read the entire thing
@zzt @jaffathecake This is an interesting read, but I struggle to find a proper demarcation criterion that
(1)separates LLMs and other types of „AI“, while
(2)allowing for a translator to be part of the last group.I think we might have reached a point where not just „AI“, but also „LLM“ is starting to lose its (already underconstrained)meaning.
-
I think the challenge with everything going on here is one of clarity.
@sil, you are asking them about disclosure of models and sourcing. But that is far from the only AI that is in the system.
The tool that does grammar checking and language identification does not leverage an LLM, and while there may be some type of model underneath, the context is very different. Tools that detect spam pages or faulty JavaScript that locks the pages, that's another type of AI hard at work.
Is the browser allowed to support speech to text?
@jmax You're calling out that Firefox may not be able to do this, but I think that mischaracterizes the scope of what's happening here.
The browser has several types of non-deterministic, probabilistic tools in it that provide useful services. Now there's a backlash against one very specific version of those non-deterministic, probabilistic tools. But the backlash is vociferous, often unsolvable, and incredibly broad.
It's hard to engage with non-specific anger.
@gatesvp @firefoxwebdevs @sil @jmax this is the sort of obfuscatory claim I see from AI marketers. "You say you hate slop, so that means you must hate X-ray scanning! Checkmate, AI hater!" It's not convincing.
-
@fasterandworse there are no such interfaces to intercept input boxes with extensions I guess. And also why should Firefox improve other browsers?
@eckes @fasterandworse To further the charitable mission, pretty obviously.
-
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?
@firefoxwebdevs the AI kill switch could be better rebranded as the GenAI kill switch (I get that marketing has muddied the water here).
ML models like translations are very much not the same thing as the LLMs being pushed at the moment and should be treated separately.
And I truly appreciate the work out into getting it performant and accurate enough for my needs.
For me, ensuring that the browser isn't leaking what I'm reading is an important privacy control, and I wouldn't trust a 3rd party plugin or an online translator service (or Google translate in Chrome).
-
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?
donate to servo if you can
https://opencollective.com/servo
they have a roadmap that is dedicated to making an actual browser engine, not a collection of browser features on top of one
-
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?
@firefoxwebdevs The problem is "AI" is a meaningless marketing term, and if you have to pose a question using it, then you aren't being specific enough about what you're asking. More generally, if you find you have to pose an ethical question at all to the public, it's a big signal that you shouldn't be doing what you're doing.
-
@zzt I posted this poll after a meeting where we discussed the design of the kill switch, and there was uncertainty around translations. I want to make sure the community's voice is represented in these discussions.
> I want to make sure the community's voice is represented in these discussions.
if that were true, the poll would have had a "remove all LLM functionality" option.
-
@firefoxwebdevs going through all the other replies and your lack of response to any of them..
“why are there flaming bags of poop on my porch, and why do they all have different postmarks”
-
@funkylab @flxtr @firefoxwebdevs there's no such thing as good machine translation
@typhon @flxtr @firefoxwebdevs oh I'm sure not being able to read what the Japanese seismographic agency's website said about the underwater quake is much better than having had a machine translation of that page for my friend in Alaska. </sarcasm>
-
@eckes @fasterandworse To further the charitable mission, pretty obviously.
q1 - design one
q2 - see the post you responded to -
@twifkak Also notice that Mastodon instances are using LibreTranslate.
Has that been debated as well?
-
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?
@firefoxwebdevs I've only got one more firefox uninstall before all my machines and devices are completely free of your AI, ML or whatever you're branding the scraped, stolen data, trained models you see fit to use now and in the future.
-
@zzt I posted this poll after a meeting where we discussed the design of the kill switch, and there was uncertainty around translations. I want to make sure the community's voice is represented in these discussions.
@firefoxwebdevs @zzt As a member of the community: Do not give us a kill switch. Give us a build of Firefox with the AI/ML capabilities removed entirely at compile-time. Then either you can supply a second build with the slop features, or possibly offer your slop features as extensions.
-
@firefoxwebdevs as a user, I like and use translation. Having one app render and translate content makes sense to me.
I like how you do it (incl on-device, on-demand and privacy-preserving, and open data (assuming it means not copyrighted?)).
Because of both, it is clearly different from other “AI” to me, even if it technically would use language models that are large, and this poll makes sense to me.
It's tricky, I voted, but wasn't super sure. I think granular controls would be great.
@hdv @firefoxwebdevs Hidde’s perspective lines up with mine, I think. It feels different to me, though I could see arguments for either UX approach.
-
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?
@firefoxwebdevs the language and framing of this poll is misleading. i voted for "re-enable translations", but after reading more of the discussions happening in the comments i would have rather voted for "yes". what kind of open data are we talking about? why does this need to be built into the browser instead of being available as an optional extension?
-
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?
There should be an option to enable/disable translation regardless of any other feature.
-
potayto, potahto
-
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?
@firefoxwebdevs Is it an off-switch, or isn't it?
"Off-switch except for this PM's pet project" is not an off-switch.
-
@gatesvp @firefoxwebdevs @sil @jmax this is the sort of obfuscatory claim I see from AI marketers. "You say you hate slop, so that means you must hate X-ray scanning! Checkmate, AI hater!" It's not convincing.
Let's assume you're correct.
People only care about AI slop.Why is Firefox even running this survey? Like who cares? Translations aren't "AI slop", they don't need to be covered by the "AI Kill Switch"... why are they even asking this question?
Now take that assumption and read the rest of the comments. From what I'm reading, people care about more than just the AI slop. People are asking questions about the models being used for ML systems, systems that are incapable of generating AI slop.
So we're at a weird spot here. You believe that people care only about AI slop. Firefox obviously believes that people care about more than that, because they're running this survey. And people responding are asking questions that also indicate they care about more than AI slop.
So how do we square this?
What do you think is a better outcome for Firefox and the community?
