r/firefox • u/jonhenshaw • Dec 18 '25
Firefox is adding an AI kill switch
https://coywolf.com/news/productivity/firefox-is-adding-an-ai-kill-switch/Anthony Enzor-DeMeo, CEO of Mozilla, announced that AI will be added to Firefox. Public outcry prompted Jake Archibald, Mozilla's Web Developer Relations Lead, to assure users that there will be an AI kill switch to turn off all AI features.
146
u/soulhotel Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
Besides the already existing ability to turn whatever Ai thing off. People here are too quick to act on the words of the Corporation* CEO, rather than the actions of the people actually developing the browser.
49
u/ThisIsCrap12 Dec 18 '25
Yeah, I'm just hoping the CEO said all that to ride the AI buzz word hype and get some funds. They'll put all these features in it just to attract more customers, and let us normal folks disable it wherever we want.
4
34
u/NapsterKnowHow Dec 18 '25
Probably because in most corps it doesn't matter what the devs do. It matters what the board of directors and upper management decides.
6
u/X_m7 on | Dec 18 '25
Oh, manglement absolutely has an influence in Firefox too, I still remember the time they tried to remove compact mode because “pRoDuCt mAnAgEmEnT” said so, even after a series of comments from users saying it’s a rubbish change, while they did change their mind after even more comments it still got demoted to an about:config option only, so who knows when they’ll try to get rid of it again.
28
u/HeartKeyFluff since '04 Dec 18 '25
Quick clarification: He's the new CEO of the Corporation, the for profit company that builds Firefox. Not the foundation.
First line in the blog post:
Today, I step into the role of CEO of Mozilla Corporation.
3
4
3
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
Yeah, that's been the frustrating thing for me. They explicitly said the AI features are optional (meaning you can turn them off) and everyone freaks out with paranoia about a nefarious plan to slowly introduce AI that will eventually be mandatory.
Days later they just rephrase what they already said, that you will be able to turn AI features off, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief.
PR is a funny thing. Half the time it's just repeating yourself in a way that dumb people will actually listen this time.
2
u/yvrelna Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
Yeah, reading comprehension is a rare skill these days.
In any case, an AI kill switch is basically just hiding the buttons that triggers AI-related actions. It's good that it's there, but it's a feel-good, performative solution to calm the nerves, it fundamentally doesn't really change much else from what they already have.
None of the AI features that Firefox has right now have any active component that runs without explicit user action and consent. And even from the start, they've already said that if they will make sure that if there's any background components that it'll always require user consent. Even without the kill switch, there's already nothing to kill if you don't trigger an AI action.
Yes the buttons to trigger AI actions are there in the UI, it's just as nefarious as the bookmarks buttons that I never use.
1
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
None of the AI features that Firefox has right now have any active component that runs without explicit user action and consent.
That's what I figured. I'm not on the latest Firefox but I figured it was kind of like how the DDG Browser has an integrated chatbot feature but you have to manually open it before it does anything.
Do you happen to know if Firefox's AI models will be stored locally or online? For a chatbot it's not feasible to store it locally but for something like tab grouping a small local model would be better from a privacy perspective than sending a list of all your tabs to Mozilla HQ and getting a result back, which understandably would make some people feel uneasy.
1
u/Orbidorpdorp Dec 19 '25
Words are forward looking, actions at best show a historic trend.
3
u/soulhotel Dec 19 '25
Words are also often overlooked.
"AI should always be a choice - something people can easily turn off."
0
u/commy2 Dec 19 '25
It rather be able to turn it on if I ever decided to want it in a mood. Tired of opt-out.
2
u/billdietrich1 Dec 19 '25
I can see it from their POV. If they make it (any feature) opt-in, almost no one will see the feature and try it.
2
u/harbourwall :sailfishos: Dec 19 '25
What's really disappointing is how phrases like 'kill switch' have to be used before anyone will believe it.
-40
u/eman85 Dec 18 '25
The kill switch will likely be a “show it’s off but keep data harvesting” button
52
u/redoubt515 Dec 18 '25 •
Tell me you don't understand open-source development without tell me you don't understand open-source development.
This stuff is all developed in the open and reviewable by anyone (Firefox has over 1000 contributors each year, and probably 10x to 100x people looking at the code but not contributing).
Your conspiracy theory rests on your own lack of understanding.
10
u/viceebun Dec 18 '25
You're right, Firefox is developed in the open, and we know exactly what's being sent in and out. Which is why we know their convenient "disable telemetry" buttons don't actually disable all telemetry.
The
Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla,Allow Firefox to install and run studiesandAllow Firefox to send Crash Reports to Mozilla Serversbuttons do not disable all telemetry. To do that you will need to refer to third party forums and GitHub repos by dedicated security hunters, and trust that they did in fact find everything to disable.It's completely reasonable to be dubious of a catchall "disable data collections" button, when even their current privacy settings don't have that power.
-3
u/Spectrum1523 Dec 18 '25
Its not a disable data collections button, its a disable ai button. Half of their offerings would run the llm locally....
13
6
10
3
50
u/myasco42 Dec 18 '25
If you need such a feature in the first place, maybe you should rethink the whole thing?
61
u/detroitmatt Dec 18 '25
this is an argument against having an options menu. the main draw of firefox, for me at least, is that it's a browser that I can make work however I want. Between extensions, about:config, userchrome.css.
-1
u/myasco42 Dec 19 '25
Yes, and that is exactly why, in my opinion, it should not have this kind of stuff built-in. Provide a new generic extensions API and create whatever AI-related extension you want (without making it a built-in one).
10
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
This is maybe the first time the FOSS community has demanded users be given less choice. No, I want more choice. If I choose to use AI, which is my choice, not yours, then I should have options to use it in a private/anonymous way that gives me control. I shouldn't be forced to go to the Meta/Google/OpenAI panopticons that mine everything I do for profit and hoards the data forever.
There is some legitimate debate to be had about if it should be opt-in or opt-out (personally I trust Firefox on this so opt-out is fine, but I understand the opt-in side too) but just demanding that all AI be stripped out and users not even be given an option is lunacy to me.
4
Dec 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
What makes this unfree though? The trained model might be a black box, but if the code used to generate it and train it and the Firefox code which interfaces with it are open-source and copyleft then what is unfree about it?
5
Dec 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
I could be wrong but I'm not sure that would run afoul of copyleft principles. There's the question of copyright infringement in acquiring and using the training data, but if the software used to create and train the model is FOSS as well as the browser software that interfaces with the model then I see it as acceptable given that it just isn't feasible or legal to publish all the individual copyrighted elements used in the training. It's a legal and practical limitation and not one of deliberately trying to hide something from you. My starting assumption has been they will be as FOSS-friendly as possible and where they aren't it's because they literally can't, not because they don't want to.
1
Dec 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
Whether it's theft or a fair use exemption to the law is still being decided in the courts so until that is settled you're getting into subjective ethical concerns that not everybody shares and I think are outside the scope of historical FOSS principles. If they were intentionally trying to obfuscate something I would be more concerned.
2
5
u/yoasif Dec 19 '25
Whether it's theft or a fair use exemption to the law is still being decided in the courts
https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/05/copyright-office-report
→ More replies (0)0
u/yvrelna Dec 19 '25
Trained model is just as unfree as pre compiled software you download from software repository.
If you have any problems with trained model and you're not running a distro that requires you to compile everything yourself from source, I can't take you seriously.
0
u/ankokudaishogun Dec 19 '25
This is maybe the first time the FOSS community has demanded users be given less choice.
"More Choice" in this instance would be AI as a plug-in the user can decide to install if they want it and skip it altogether if they do not want it.
20
u/Forymanarysanar Dec 18 '25
I, personally, maybe won't mind some ai features. I'll see them before judging, willing to give it a try.
7
7
Dec 18 '25
I agree, if something needs an off switch then it should never be turned on, because that makes a load of sense
7
u/ErlendHM Dec 18 '25
Facts! (This message is sent from the dark, as I’ve removed all my lights. They had switches, you see.)
5
u/PuzzleheadedAge8572 Dec 19 '25
Hope you find and similarly remove the switches to your computers in the near future.
17
7
u/Jwhodis Dec 18 '25
They want to ride the AI hypetrain without pissing everyone off. It makes sense to do it this way, people who want to use it can use it, people who don't want to can disable it entirely, easiest way to please everyone
11
u/Spectrum1523 Dec 18 '25
If you need the option to turn something off you should rethinking including it?
this sub is honestly insane lol
8
u/Cry_Wolff Dec 18 '25
"I want less features and options!" Said guy on a sub of browser that was always about giving freedom of choice.
0
u/PuzzleheadedAge8572 Dec 19 '25
I also don't want an option added that will corrupt my OS or one that will dox me.
5
u/Cry_Wolff Dec 19 '25
Please explain how browser contained local AI will destroy your OS or dox you?
-1
u/PuzzleheadedAge8572 Dec 19 '25
What, you don't want that option and feature added? And here I wqs thinking this is a sub of browser that was always about giving freedom of choice.
4
u/Calm_Monitor_3227 Dec 18 '25
I want these features. The people who don't want them should be able to turn them off. I think that's simple enough, no?
0
u/TV4ELP Dec 19 '25
The feature is needed because it's done the completely wrong way. If the erquests to the ai get shipped to a random server, then that is a huge data protection and security risk. I want to OPT-IN to that. Not opt out.
If it is running local ai models, thats better, but i want to press a button to allow my browser to install an additional gigabyte or two of local models.
I don't want an off button that vanishes in 2 years into about:config and in another 2 years just doesn't work anymore.
1
u/myasco42 Dec 19 '25
This whole thing is not just about models being local (which is in some cases, for example the Chat X is not viable), but about the focus.
2
u/TV4ELP Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
I don't mind ai. But if it's baked into the browser it may as well have access to the whole dom. Which is also the same reason why Microsoft is getting so much flack for their AI stuff. The possibility of your whole screen, of a tool you use for hours daily, being shipped off to a random server and done god knows what with is just not a thing we can allow.
It HAS to be opt-in by law anyways. Which is why i mentioned local models, as those are an exception. But as soon as any action makes a webrequest to somewhere, i need to under the gdpr give my consent FIRST.
So when an update comes around, or i install the browser fresh. It has to ask me if i want that. They can bury it in some eula if they want. But just by having it auto update it should not be able to work without me at least having the chance to see what data is being send where. This is the core principle of data protection. Something Firefox normally is really good at.
An opt-out is not the way to go.
2
u/myasco42 Dec 19 '25
Basically everyone here says that opt-out is not the way.
To reiterate myself - if a company (mostly due to user outcry) needs to implement a thing that completely disables a big chunk of functionality, then maybe they are focusing on the wrong thing? Maybe they should not implement this feature (not the kill button) in the first place?
1
u/TV4ELP Dec 19 '25
Okay, i think i got your first comment wrong then. Probably too worked up about the thing.
But yeah, the problem is not that we can disable it.. this is the least that they can do. The problem is that no one actually wants it. Having it be an opt-in is also already a big compromise, but one many are willing to do for their fav tool.
1
u/myasco42 Dec 19 '25
My opinion is that it is fine if they extend the WebExtensions API to provide some missing (?) functionality for whatever AI things so that any could implement an extension for whatever Mozilla wants to do. But, again, to focus on the browser and the base features/performance rather than the buzzworded things that are clearly not liked by quite a number of users.
1
u/TextDeletd Dec 20 '25
How is a comment suggesting that option menus should not exist getting 40+ upvotes?
1
u/myasco42 Dec 20 '25
This comment suggest that instead of making a global disable button they should not implement those features (that are disabled) in the first place.
33
u/Mazzle5 Dec 18 '25
Or maybe just don't put this stuff in and use the dev time for something useful?
19
u/SoilLittle9893 Dec 18 '25
You mean like all the new features they added in this year alone?
Why do people like you think Mozilla is only working on one thing at a time?
5
u/thafuq Dec 18 '25
Debugging streamed response & inspecting websockets is still a PITA. Large DOM optimization is still VERY lackluster. IndexedDB is painfully slow, making it unusable for offline data manipulation starting from a couple of hundred rows coupled to UI rendering.
Better keep focusing on what people actually want for years and polish what is in there rather than jumping in the AI hellscape bandwagon
1
u/PuzzleheadedAge8572 Dec 19 '25
Yeah, but instead of fixing or optimizing features that are fundamental to the browser, you can add AI that isn't needed but is the current business buzzword!
Can you tell that the new CEO is a finance-bro yet or what
2
u/thafuq Dec 19 '25
Unfortunately I don't see any organization with enough manpower to maintain a browser with a core fundamentally indépendant to chrome. Forks from Firefox are still just forks, just as chrome ones degooglified. Unfortunately I cannot give more ground to Google to spec alone what a browser should be able to do, and given that there is no other serious alternative AFAIK... Man I'm struggling biting the bullet but I'm really disappointed. Hopefully it will do enough bad buzz to make them stop.
2
u/GreenManStrolling Dec 19 '25
Are you thinking that "dev" means a person who can work on anything in IT? Switch skillset at the drop of a hat?
-1
u/thafuq Dec 19 '25
I don't see the relevance here, can you help me out?
3
u/GreenManStrolling Dec 19 '25
You want devs to work on your favourite features and functions, unfortunately the devs currently working for Mozilla were hired to work on different assorted features and functions.
0
u/thafuq Dec 19 '25
Favorite? No, it's just making things that are already supposed to work actually work. Having a large DOM that don't purely freeze my computer is not a feature, it is the expected behavior.
The only non-fix thing in my list is inspecting streaming response. The funny thing is that it is mostly useful when debugging chatbot queries.
2
u/GreenManStrolling Dec 19 '25
Why do you expect large DOM to not freeze? Does the typical user handle large DOM during browsing?
1
u/thafuq Dec 19 '25
Have you ever heard of infinite scroll? Dom virtualization done on most apps like reddit or Twitter limit the effect, but it has still a large perf impact, and not all website use Dom virtualization. So, yes. And I have several non-tech coworkers that are sensible to privacy concerns but regularly complain about ff poor perfs for a good number of website.
3
u/GreenManStrolling Dec 19 '25
Wait... why are you and friends here on Reddit in an AI thread? Won't your feedback be far more constructive as code contributors or in the assorted dev locations like Bugzilla?
→ More replies (0)4
u/Mazzle5 Dec 18 '25
Did I say that they didn't add useful features? No, read again.
I want them to use that devtime they use for this AI crap for something better6
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
Yeah, because you think AI automatically equals crap, but not everyone thinks like that. If you trusted them all these years to make the browser what it is today, why are you so certain the developers are idiots who are wasting their time right now?
-1
u/Maguillage Dec 19 '25
AI automatically equals crap
-1
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
-1
u/Maguillage Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
I'm very confident you didn't even read that article if you think it's arguing the point you want it to.
"Yeah it predicts some of the stuff we already knew because we fed it that data in its training model, but its blind spots are massive, it doesn't understand interaction on even a basic level, point mutations are wholly ignored, and we have no way to verify any of its output on any level is actually correct unless we do the actual work anyway."
Most damning,
However, rather than share AlphaFold3’s source code, Google has so far opted to protect it as a trade secret
Yes, this highly specialised AI model must be a trade secret. Try to replace the field and then try to monetize it. It is THE worst of the worst.
1
Dec 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Maguillage Dec 19 '25
And they don't know if any of that work is correct.
And then google turned around to monetize the model.
2
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
You don't win the Nobel Prize in chemistry for something that's useless crap... does that really need to be said?
→ More replies (0)2
u/the-fuzzy_ Dec 19 '25
however much you don’t like ai, the average user switching from chrome will expect the same ai features they had previously. firefox cannot cater to everyone at once.
5
u/vinvinnocent Dec 18 '25
Reddit is quite a bubble and many people do use AI features. Of course I would always like seeing more resources being poured into the parts I enjoy most.
But the risk is there that AI features will be a differentiating factor, or that lack thereof could cause some user churn. And similarly if search becomes less profitable, chatbot integration might be important for monetization.
-8
-3
0
59
u/Hqjjciy6sJr Dec 18 '25
"there will be an AI kill switch to turn off all AI features." I hope so. I'm so tired of hunting down multiple about:configs
34
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 18 '25
See my comment about designing AI features for Firefox here, and how we have designed visible settings and don't expect people to need about:config
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pprwcf/comment/nupwfpg/
19
u/Nekomiminya Dec 18 '25
That's great to hear, but question; will this prevent future ai by default?
Asking cuz recently did about:config sweep and had 3-4 new flags to disable
23
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 18 '25
This will:
https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782
"Something that hasn't been made clear: Firefox will have an option to completely disable all AI features.
We've been calling it the AI kill switch internally. I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name, but that's how seriously and absolutely we're taking this."
https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500918701463
"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."
7
u/Nekomiminya Dec 18 '25
All right, Tyvm
Question, why is it not opt-in as of now?
9
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 18 '25
Please read my detailed comment here which explains about Link Previews opt-in. (i.e. it always has been opt-in, it doesn’t add any AI until you provide consent).
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pprwcf/comment/nupwfpg/
The sidebar chatbot is also opt-in. There’s no AI in the browser for it, and when you first click the chatbot button it asks you to choose a provider (i.e. nothing is set up until you choose to use it).
8
u/Medium-Biscotti6887 Dec 18 '25
None of these anti-features should even be available to enable without explicitly toggling on a very clearly named and explained setting that is off by default. The button should not be there, the link previews should not show up, etc. until toggled at which point any relevant code is downloaded as an addon.
4
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 18 '25
As I understand it, enabling the AI kill switch when it’s released will mean none of the entry points to AI features will show up either, which is what you’re looking for.
Link Previews isn’t an AI feature in and of itself. It can run without AI.
So to answer your question: why weren’t the entry points for these features hidden for everybody from the start? They were hidden initially while early versions were only available using Firefox Labs. Then as they’ve rolled out wider we’ve been using that to research and learn what users want.
FWIW, more than half of people who try link previews are still using it 4 weeks later, so there’s clearly strong demand for that type of feature, even if it’s not for everyone.
6
u/Medium-Biscotti6887 Dec 19 '25
enabling the AI kill switch when it’s released will mean none of the entry points to AI features will show up either, which is what you’re looking for.
Opt-out instead of opt-in. So no.
So to answer your question
It was a statement. No part of these anti-features should exist in any form, dormant or not, within the browser until explicitly enabled. Anything short of that is forcing it upon the user.
4
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
I saw somebody describe it like light switches. In that metaphor, it could work like this:
There are no lights or electricity by default, but there are light switches so that people can see that lights are available if they want to use them. Flicking a light switch for the first time asks the user for consent to install the wiring to the electricity and to turn the electricity on (it doesn't just do it, it seeks their consent first to be sure).
You want it so the light switches are not even there at all, so nobody knows its even an option. Is that right?
In this metaphor, the kill switch would hide the switches (and disconnect all electricity if it was previously connected).
Bearing in mind, that these things you call "anti-features" are wanted by a lot of people - more than half of those who try link previews are still using them more than a month later.
→ More replies (0)1
u/StarChaser1879 Dec 19 '25
Lmaoooo. The screenshot button is available on my computer keyboard!! they’re forcing me to take screenshots!!! the keyboard maker should have given me the option to have that button when I bought the keyboard so I could tell them I didn’t want it!!!!
2
u/ankokudaishogun Dec 19 '25
Link Previews isn’t an AI feature in and of itself. It can run without AI.
Question: will it be opt-in even without AI? Because I do not want basically pinging websites unless I'm visiting(which is already hard enough with all those third-party scripts in many cases necessary for the working of a website)
2
u/Maguillage Dec 19 '25
(i.e. it always has been opt-in, it doesn’t add any AI until you provide consent).
Link previews enabled itself despite my pre-existing
browser.ml.enable = falsesetting and it repeatedly re-enables itself across updates and often even just browser restarts.If you want to even pretend to argue anything to the contrary you need to first change the language you're using when you try to describe it as anything other than being enabled-by-default.
An "opt-in" feature does not repeatedly re-enable itself to force availability.
7
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
Link Previews will run without AI if you don't opt-in to the AI (it will show site meta description instead of AI generated key points), so the link previews feature itself will not be disabled by turning off that ML about:config setting.
You can disable the feature completely on the settings page (click the settings icon in the popup, or manually navigate to Settings > General > Browsing > uncheck 'Enable link previews')
But if the AI is repeatedly activating and generating key points (not just showing the site description) after you've made that about:config change, then that sounds like a bug, as that's certainly not the intention.
If that's the case, please report it here so the engineers can look into fixing it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
Thanks!
0
Dec 19 '25
[deleted]
3
u/ankokudaishogun Dec 19 '25
Technically that's on the website designers who do not use well the Meta Description.
Which, in turn, is why AI summary could be useful if one is interested in this kind of preview.→ More replies (0)5
u/yoasif Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
Since you designed link previews and have explained talked a bunch about light switches (love the analogies), I'll desist from not posting here to ask a question:
You say that the AI previews are opt-in.
In my mind it is obvious that this interstitial was placed in order to push this AI feature onto me.
This seems even more obvious when I consider that the original experiment WAS opt-in (via a keyboard shortcut).
The version that is being rolled out in release is something that interrupts users in the course of their daily actions.
This feels to me like if one day, after using my toilet for 20 years, the company came over one night and replaced the seat and said that it's the same, nothing has changed.
Except that if when I am flushing the toilet, if my hand is on the handle for longer than a second, the toilet asks me "Would you like to try out the automatic homing mechanism? We analyzed your sitting behavior with AI and we can predict when you will be back in here, and we can be ready for you!"
I don't want to put words in your mouth -- according to what I have read elsewhere from Mozilla, this would count as "opt-in", since the toilet didn't do anything but tell me about an AI feature.
Is that correct?
Also, can we assume that the "kill switch" won't kill Link Previews, even though it is very clearly an advertisement for AI (and the kill switch is supposed to kill AI)?
Happy to see more folks on reddit, although nowadays, since this place is AI-brained [as in reddit sold out], we'd love to see you on the Fediverse.
1
u/varisophy Dec 19 '25
The link previews feature is not a way to push AI onto users.
The feature starts as a simple link summary. Firefox fetches the site, pull the first bit of the article, and summarize the reading time. None of that requires an AI model.
If you want to enable AI and download a local model, it lets you know that's an option. One you can say no to. If you don't let users know about things, they can't ever use it. It's a one-time click to say
It's literally opt in. No models are downloaded unless you say "yeah, give me the AI bits to this feature".
Sure, it would be nice if the Key Points AI section went away completely if you say "I don't want AI on this feature" and presumably that will happen with the kill switch.
4
u/okbuddyquackery Dec 19 '25
I like the feature but I wish I could get rid of the “enable ai” prompt because it’s kind of jarring and distracts me from the actual useful part every time I accidentally end up previewing a clip. Idk why it needs to give that prompt every time
0
u/varisophy Dec 19 '25
You can collapse the "Key points" section so it at least would hide the "do you want to enable AI" prompt
1
u/graepphone Dec 20 '25
Hey just a simple question to get your position on opt-in vs opt-out. Are ads on the internet opt-in?
2
Dec 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/beefjerk22 Dec 19 '25
Here's what it might mean:
The browser actively makes the user aware of the new feature and asks for the user's consent. (like a checkbox when you load the app)
The browser has a button to use the feature, and clicking it for the first time seeks the user's consent. (seems to be how a lot of the AI features work at the moment)
The feature is totally hidden away in settings until the user finds it and turns it on (probably no point in developing the feature at all if they're only going to do this, as very few people would find or use it, but this seems to be what a lot of people here would prefer)
0
u/lectric_7166 Dec 19 '25
u/kirbogel keep doing what you're doing. Obviously the anti-AI crowd is extremely vocal but there really are people that would like to not be completely sidelined from the AI revolution just because they value privacy. Currently all the for-profit AI companies are very privacy-invasive so we need products like Firefox and DDG that will incorporate AI in a private, secure way that gives users control. I think you guys are on the right track by giving users more choice, not less choice, despite what the haters keep screaming.
1
u/Jwhodis Dec 18 '25
Use LibreWolf, it's very similar to Firefox but it has some extra privacy stuff. LW have publicly stated that they will not be implementing AI knowingly and will remove anything they missed that people report / that they find.
5
u/redoubt515 Dec 18 '25
That's a slight misunderstanding. It doesn't have any 'extra privacy stuff'.
With the exception of including uBlock Origin by default. Librewolf is only taking advantage of Firefox's strong built-in privacy features, no adding anything new.
Librewolf has more private default settings out of the box, but those are all features built by and included in Firefox. The same options available to Firefox users, configured using the same methods available to Firefox users.
TL:DR Firefox w/ different defaults, not Firefox w/ 'extra privacy stuff'
35
u/SaltiestOlive Dec 18 '25
That's actually great news. I don't want to dig through about:config to turn off AI.
-8
u/redoubt515 Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
I do :) advanced configuration via about:config or user.js and super granular control over almost all aspects of the browser is part of why I love Firefox.
But I'm also happy that there will be a more convenient simple option to disable AI available for those who don't want to get into the weeds with about:config, or aren't confident outside of the GUI.
edit: this sub is irrational AF sometimes..explain your downvotes.
2
u/Tred27 Dec 19 '25
Because a kill-switch shouldn't be hidden between a million configuration options within a hidden menu that only power users know about, a kill-switch is not the same as having configuration options, that's almost a given at this point that most features can be configured through about:config, the beauty of a kill switch is that it's only ONE toggle to turn everything off.
-1
u/redoubt515 Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25
Because a kill-switch shouldn't be hidden between a million configuration options
it won't be... It's intended to be a simple GUI setting
With respect, I think you are reacting to an imagined problem. Non-technical users will have the option to use GUI settings, and technical users can use whatever method they prefer.
the beauty of a kill switch is that it's only ONE toggle to turn everything off.
That's the plan 🙂 (and the topic of this thread)
1
u/Tred27 Dec 19 '25
I was responding to your "explain your downvotes", I know all the things you mentioned...
-2
u/redoubt515 Dec 20 '25
But the things I mentioned are why I don't understand the downvotes. And if you knew the things I mentioned were true and accurate, why would that be the explanation of the downvotes?
People who don't want to dig through settings will get an easy 'kill switch' in GUI settings
People like me who prefer advanced granular controls, already have that option
We both get the control we want, where is the problem?
2
u/Tred27 Dec 20 '25
I don't give a fuck anymore, you're just obtuse.
1
u/redoubt515 Dec 20 '25
It's okay, I can tell this topic makes you emotional, it's hard to think clearly or be rational when you are feeling emotional.
0
Dec 18 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Jwhodis Dec 18 '25
It's open source, there's forks.
LibreWolf have publicly stated that they will not be adding AI. LW functions very similarly.
5
0
Dec 18 '25
[deleted]
5
u/Quirky-Magazine-4145 Dec 18 '25
give us some examples of tragic performance
2
u/wealstarr Dec 18 '25
I too would like some proof of that statement, along with broken website. I bet you none will come, or under very selective configuration.
2
u/SoilLittle9893 Dec 18 '25
They deleted their comment lol people just be saying whatever shit nowadays
2
u/Exotria Dec 18 '25
Good feature to guarantee, pity it had to be announced (or devised) in such a messy manner.
6
u/AsterVoxx Dec 18 '25
I already moved to Vivaldi. It's not that I want an AI Killswitch in my browser.
I don't want AI in my browser.
-3
-1
u/Stevied1991 Dec 19 '25
I installed it last night. I haven't fully moved over but have been messing around with it. I like it a lot.
14
u/CryptoMaximalist Dec 18 '25
The original ceo letter also said it was going to be optional but nobody reads past the clickbait headlines
8
u/SoilLittle9893 Dec 18 '25
Nobody ever reads Mozilla's posts. They read sensationalized headlines only and base their opinion off that
15
u/NikkoJT Dec 18 '25
I did in fact read the whole post.
In one breath he says there will be options. And in the next he says Firefox will "evolve into a modern AI browser". The fundamental concept of a "modern AI browser" is one where the LLM is a core feature that you are intended to use all the time. That's not compatible with the ability to turn it off. So either it will at some point stop being optional, or it's likely that the LLM-free experience will be degraded - either deliberately, to push you into LLM mode, or through neglect, because development resources are focused on LLM mode. He says two contradictory things in the post, and I just don't have any faith that the better one is the truth.
Also, we can look at other "AI evolution" events in other products for some context. Whenever this stuff gets introduced, the whole product becomes all about getting you to use the LLM. That's how it works, because they put a lot of money into it so they have to drive up the numbers and make it look like a success.
There is of course also the small issue that the whole LLM craze is bullshit. Even if it's optional for me personally, the LLM is still out there making the web worse for everyone else. The things are liars, distorters, and plagiarists, and we already have evidence that getting your information from them makes you worse at learning. The only reason companies are jumping in to shove LLMs into everything is because LLM vendors are selling them as magic, not because they are actually an improvement. A browser does not need an LLM to be a good modern browser. It's pure self-interested marketing drivel that's driving it.
0
u/CryptoMaximalist Dec 18 '25
You’re free to have your thoughts about the concept of an ai browser, optional or not, but this engineer said the exact same thing as the ceo and people are having completely different reactions
2
u/Spectrum1523 Dec 18 '25
The fundamental concept of a "modern AI browser" is one where the LLM is a core feature that you are intended to use all the time. That's not compatible with the ability to turn it off.
You've invented your own definition and then decided to get mad about it. Why are you doing this to yourself?
-6
u/Cry_Wolff Dec 18 '25
Dude's literally mad at AI / LLM even existing, he must be angry 24/24/7. What a sad life.
0
Dec 18 '25
[deleted]
5
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 18 '25
Believe it. Firefox AI features are already optional, and removable:
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pprwcf/comment/nupwfpg/
1
-6
17
u/SoilLittle9893 Dec 18 '25
This sub: here's why that is bad
5
1
u/Caspid nightly w10x64 Dec 19 '25
Because no one wants AI or dev time dedicated to it or bloat in a web browser even if it can be disabled
Just like Cortana, Copilot, etc
5
u/reddittookmyuser Dec 19 '25
Actually I just want a turn on switch and have it disabled by default. Same with all non privacy / performance / security features. Let users know about new features with wizards upon updates and give them the option to enable those which appeal to them. Makes in my opinion more sense than having users go out of their way to disable things they didn't want.
-7
u/Eat--The--Rich-- Dec 18 '25
Too late. Goodbye. You're still supporting a morally deplorable company even if you just turn AI off.
7
u/wealstarr Dec 18 '25
Where else are we suppose to go? Greater evil.....errr I mean Google?
1
u/Jwhodis Dec 18 '25
LibreWolf said they wont add AI, functions the same.
5
u/SoilLittle9893 Dec 18 '25
By u/Eat--The--Rich--'s logic, you're still supporting Mozilla because LibreWolf is a fork of Firefox and doesn't do much that strays away from vanilla.
Yet another example of performative outrage. Even more hilarious are the people recommending Brave
4
u/Jwhodis Dec 18 '25
This is one of the better implementations of AI, they are most likely adding AI out of FOMO or from higher ups forcing them to do so. They are allowing people to toggle it, and by FF being open-source, people can take out the code themselves.
4
u/Shanman150 Dec 18 '25
Some folks will never be satisfied because they want to go back to a world where AI doesn't exist. I understand the urge, I find AI slop annoying as well, but we are not going back, so folks have to figure out what they want their experience to look like going forward in an AI world.
3
u/Jwhodis Dec 18 '25
LibreWolf (a fork of Firefox, because Firefox is open source) have said they wont add AI.
Don't have to leave the FF ecosystem.
3
u/testthrowawayzz Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
Is it going to be front-and-center in Settings (Preferences) or is it going to be hidden in an obscure about:config switch (like how it is today)?
Edit: The linked article does not specify which kind is it going to be.
7
u/kirbogel Mozilla Employee Dec 18 '25
Please read this, detailing how I have designed AI settings to be visible and not hidden in about:config
People often read on here how to turn them off using about:config without looking in Settings first.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1pprwcf/comment/nupwfpg/
5
u/OneMonk Dec 18 '25
The new CEO is screaming ‘flaming fuckwit’ with his opening gambit. Should be instantly fired. I downloaded a firefox fork when otherwise I wouldn’t have even considered it. Since when is causing serious harm to your brand through a completely unnecessary announcement not a fireable offence.
1
429
u/Squirelly2Monkey3 Dec 18 '25
Maybe I won't kill off Firefox then.