Last week we shared a number of updates with our community of users, and now we want to share them here: At Mozilla, we work hard to make Firefox the best
We are approaching the use of AI in Firefox — which many, many of you have been asking about — in the same way. We’re focused on giving you AI features that solve tangible problems, respect your privacy, and give you real choice.
We’re looking at how we can use local, on-device AI models — i.e., more private — to enhance your browsing experience further. One feature we’re starting with next quarter is AI-generated alt-text for images inserted into PDFs, which makes it more accessible to visually impaired users and people with learning disabilities.
NO! I don’t want AI in my Firefox. If Mozilla really adds AI, I will consider switching my main browser since Firefox 1 came out.
AI generated alt-text running locally is actually a fantastic accessibility feature. It’s reliable, it provides a service, it can absolutely be deployed securely.
It’s fine to be critical of technology, it’s not fine to become as irrational about it as the tech bros trying to make a buck.
Not irrational to be concerned for a number of reasons. Even if local and secure AI image processing and LLMs add fairly significant processing costs to a simple task like this. It means higher requirements for the browser, higher energy use and therefore emissions (noting here that AI has blown Microsoft’s climate mitigation plan our of the water even with some accounting tricks).
Additionally, you have to think about the long term changes to behaviours this will generate. A handy tool for when people forget to produce proper accessible documents suddenly becomes the default way of making accessible documents. Consider two situations: a culture that promotes and enforces content providers to consider different types of consumer and how they will experience the content; they know that unless they spend the 1% extra time making it accessibile for all it will exclude certain people. Now compare that to a situation where AI is pitched as an easy way not to think about the peoples experiences: the AI will sort it. Those two situations imply very different outcomes: in one there is care and thought about difference and diversity and in another there isn’t. Disabled people are an after thought. Within those two different scenarios there’s also massively different energy and emissions requirements because its making every user perform AI to get some alt text rather than generate it at source.
Finally, it worth explaining about Alt texts a bit and how people use them because its not just text descriptions of an image (which AI could indeed likely produce). Alt texts should be used to summarise the salient aspects of the image the author wants a reader to take away for it in a conscise way and sometimes that message might be slightly different for Alt Text users. AI can’t do this because it should be about the message the content creator wants to send and ensuring it’s accessible. As ever with these tech fixes for accessibility the lived experience of people with those needs isn’t actually present. Its an assumed need rather than what they are asking for.
Local and secure image recognition is fairly trivial in terms of power consumption, but hey, there’s likely going to be some option to turn it off, just like hardware acceleration for video and image rendering, which uses the same GPU in similar ways. The power consumption argument is not invalid, but the way people deploy it is baffling to me, and is often based on worst-case estimates that are not realistic by design.
To be clear, Apple is building CPUs that can parse these queries in seconds into iPads now, running at a few tens of watts. Each time I boot up Tekken on my 1000W gaming PC for five minutes I’m burning up more power than my share of AI queries for weeks, if not months.
On the second point I absolutely disagree. There is no practical advantage to making accessibility annoying to implement. Accessibility should be structural, mandatory and automatic, not a nice thing people do for you. Eff that.
As for the third part, every alt text I’ve seen deployed is not adding much of value beyond a description of the content. What is measurable and factual is that the coverage of alt-text, even in places where it’s disproportionately popular like Mastodon, is spotty at best and residual at worst. There is no question that automated alt-text is better than no alt-text, and most content has no alt-text.
That is only the tip of the iceberg for ML applied to accessibility, too. You could do active queries, you could have users be able to ask for additional context or clarification, you could have much smoother, automated voice reading of text, including visual description on demand… This tech is powerful in many areas, and this is clearly one. In fact, this is a much better application than search, by a lot. It’s frustrating that search and factual queries, where this stuff is pretty bad at being reliable, are the thing everybody is thinking about.
+1 for LibreWolf. I’ve been using it for ~2 years and it’s better than Firefox from a privacy perspective.
Development is active, so updates are being pushed regularly.
As for vertical tabs, you can easily achieve it with Tree Style Tabs.
I strongly recommend it.
I’ve looked at alternative forks of Firefox before, but there were two problems for me: a) most are not up to date or slow to update, and b) hard to trust my browser to any community or other company. You see, I actually trust Mozilla, specifically Firefox and Thunderbird. At least the AI is local only, but it would add another attack vector and bloat for no reason to me. We’ll see if it can be disabled.
The visually impaired will certainly agree that not helping them with a local AI model is a sacrifice worth being made for the purely moral stance of “no AI at all”.
/s obviously
I don’t want AI in my Firefox. If Mozilla really adds AI, I will consider switching my main browser
Don’t know why you anti-AI so much. An on-device AI is absolutely fine to me, and it’s not like Mozilla will force you to use it. Remember the world is not about only you but also people having disabilities.
Remember the world is not about only you but also people having disabilities.
Remember the world is not about only for people with disabilities. Secondly, this is a nonsense argument, because this does not “require” Ai. Especially not for every user. If its integrated into Firefox and I cannot remove it, then its very much forced. Why not make an extension for people who need or want it? (nobody needs this)
You just got good advice. Remember that the world is not only for you.
Like, it’s super not for you. It’s mostly not for you at all. If you ask me whether I care about things for people with disabilities or things for you, you don’t even chart. That’s only two options and you’re not even second on that list.
I think there is only one thing worth answering in your reply:
Why not make an extension for people who need or want it?
For web page translation, it is considered a very basic feature that should be there by default in all mainstream browsers (e.g. Chrome), but Firefox hadn’t provided this feature for a very long time.
For any AI-assisted accessibility feature such as image tagging, my opinion is that it is even more important to make it easily turn on, rather than requiring user to search and download some extensions, which might be a too hard task for a disabled person.
You missed my point entirely. If it is an extension that is installed by default, because a minority needs it, then at least the majority who don’t want it can remove the extension. This is especially more important because it is AI and not a regular program. AI is always a black box that cannot be verified.
And if its too hard for a disabled person to install extension, then its probably too hard to use Firefox in the first place. That’s nonsense argumentation. But that’s not even my actual argumentation and I think you guys try to misunderstand me, just because I don’t like what you like. AI in the browser is bullshit idea, it does not matter if its disabled or not person. And not something “required” as the base minimum, that cannot be removed.
I am just hoping governments will see the massive issues and copyright problems with AI and ban that garbage outright soon so all these companies eager to add their AI trash to every single product they ship will stop.
NO! I don’t want AI in my Firefox. If Mozilla really adds AI, I will consider switching my main browser since Firefox 1 came out.
AI generated alt-text running locally is actually a fantastic accessibility feature. It’s reliable, it provides a service, it can absolutely be deployed securely.
It’s fine to be critical of technology, it’s not fine to become as irrational about it as the tech bros trying to make a buck.
Not irrational to be concerned for a number of reasons. Even if local and secure AI image processing and LLMs add fairly significant processing costs to a simple task like this. It means higher requirements for the browser, higher energy use and therefore emissions (noting here that AI has blown Microsoft’s climate mitigation plan our of the water even with some accounting tricks).
Additionally, you have to think about the long term changes to behaviours this will generate. A handy tool for when people forget to produce proper accessible documents suddenly becomes the default way of making accessible documents. Consider two situations: a culture that promotes and enforces content providers to consider different types of consumer and how they will experience the content; they know that unless they spend the 1% extra time making it accessibile for all it will exclude certain people. Now compare that to a situation where AI is pitched as an easy way not to think about the peoples experiences: the AI will sort it. Those two situations imply very different outcomes: in one there is care and thought about difference and diversity and in another there isn’t. Disabled people are an after thought. Within those two different scenarios there’s also massively different energy and emissions requirements because its making every user perform AI to get some alt text rather than generate it at source.
Finally, it worth explaining about Alt texts a bit and how people use them because its not just text descriptions of an image (which AI could indeed likely produce). Alt texts should be used to summarise the salient aspects of the image the author wants a reader to take away for it in a conscise way and sometimes that message might be slightly different for Alt Text users. AI can’t do this because it should be about the message the content creator wants to send and ensuring it’s accessible. As ever with these tech fixes for accessibility the lived experience of people with those needs isn’t actually present. Its an assumed need rather than what they are asking for.
Local and secure image recognition is fairly trivial in terms of power consumption, but hey, there’s likely going to be some option to turn it off, just like hardware acceleration for video and image rendering, which uses the same GPU in similar ways. The power consumption argument is not invalid, but the way people deploy it is baffling to me, and is often based on worst-case estimates that are not realistic by design.
To be clear, Apple is building CPUs that can parse these queries in seconds into iPads now, running at a few tens of watts. Each time I boot up Tekken on my 1000W gaming PC for five minutes I’m burning up more power than my share of AI queries for weeks, if not months.
On the second point I absolutely disagree. There is no practical advantage to making accessibility annoying to implement. Accessibility should be structural, mandatory and automatic, not a nice thing people do for you. Eff that.
As for the third part, every alt text I’ve seen deployed is not adding much of value beyond a description of the content. What is measurable and factual is that the coverage of alt-text, even in places where it’s disproportionately popular like Mastodon, is spotty at best and residual at worst. There is no question that automated alt-text is better than no alt-text, and most content has no alt-text.
That is only the tip of the iceberg for ML applied to accessibility, too. You could do active queries, you could have users be able to ask for additional context or clarification, you could have much smoother, automated voice reading of text, including visual description on demand… This tech is powerful in many areas, and this is clearly one. In fact, this is a much better application than search, by a lot. It’s frustrating that search and factual queries, where this stuff is pretty bad at being reliable, are the thing everybody is thinking about.
Just use librewolf or something, or if they incorporate ai, I’d be surprised if an ai-free fork doesn’t pop up quickly
+1 for LibreWolf. I’ve been using it for ~2 years and it’s better than Firefox from a privacy perspective. Development is active, so updates are being pushed regularly. As for vertical tabs, you can easily achieve it with Tree Style Tabs. I strongly recommend it.
Tree style tabs is amazing, +1 for that
I’ve looked at alternative forks of Firefox before, but there were two problems for me: a) most are not up to date or slow to update, and b) hard to trust my browser to any community or other company. You see, I actually trust Mozilla, specifically Firefox and Thunderbird. At least the AI is local only, but it would add another attack vector and bloat for no reason to me. We’ll see if it can be disabled.
Librewolf is quick to update, it’s just a hardened fork of firefox
Accessibility is “no reason”?! I never called someone ableist before, but… gosh, you’re coming close.
You misunderstand me. “bloat for no reason to me” means it is no reason to use to me. I don’t care about alt-text in PDFs.
I think that sounds like a cool use case. If it runs locally what’s not to like?
The visually impaired will certainly agree that not helping them with a local AI model is a sacrifice worth being made for the purely moral stance of “no AI at all”.
/s obviously
Plus I think there will be a way to disable it (like with local translation we have rn).
Local translation is amazing, they just need to polish the settings.
Are you aware that Firefox Translate uses AI models[1] to translate text and it’s already included in current versions of Firefox?
[1]: not a completion/instruction LLM, but still very much a “language” model
Don’t know why you anti-AI so much. An on-device AI is absolutely fine to me, and it’s not like Mozilla will force you to use it. Remember the world is not about only you but also people having disabilities.
Remember the world is not about only for people with disabilities. Secondly, this is a nonsense argument, because this does not “require” Ai. Especially not for every user. If its integrated into Firefox and I cannot remove it, then its very much forced. Why not make an extension for people who need or want it? (nobody needs this)
Hey. Hey? Hey. Hello friend.
You just got good advice. Remember that the world is not only for you.
Like, it’s super not for you. It’s mostly not for you at all. If you ask me whether I care about things for people with disabilities or things for you, you don’t even chart. That’s only two options and you’re not even second on that list.
So yeah. Good advice.
I think there is only one thing worth answering in your reply:
For web page translation, it is considered a very basic feature that should be there by default in all mainstream browsers (e.g. Chrome), but Firefox hadn’t provided this feature for a very long time.
For any AI-assisted accessibility feature such as image tagging, my opinion is that it is even more important to make it easily turn on, rather than requiring user to search and download some extensions, which might be a too hard task for a disabled person.
You missed my point entirely. If it is an extension that is installed by default, because a minority needs it, then at least the majority who don’t want it can remove the extension. This is especially more important because it is AI and not a regular program. AI is always a black box that cannot be verified.
And if its too hard for a disabled person to install extension, then its probably too hard to use Firefox in the first place. That’s nonsense argumentation. But that’s not even my actual argumentation and I think you guys try to misunderstand me, just because I don’t like what you like. AI in the browser is bullshit idea, it does not matter if its disabled or not person. And not something “required” as the base minimum, that cannot be removed.
I am just hoping governments will see the massive issues and copyright problems with AI and ban that garbage outright soon so all these companies eager to add their AI trash to every single product they ship will stop.
That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. You AI holdouts are going to have accept it in some form sooner or later.
Meh, if it will do stuff like merging results in the awesome bar, I’ll happily take it.