c/fuck_ai · by e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de · 185d

Mozilla is now encouraging unattributed slop code in Firefox

https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox/commit/71cc24b6a400dbd434e4df37087960d94b764791

Usually code contributions by various LLMs are easily identifiable because the agent is the author for the git commit. Mozilla on the other hand seem to be explicitly encouraging unattributed LLM code in Firefox. Also note jakearchibald, Mozillas AI spin doctor whenever devs question their intentions, lying about the reasons for this change. I think their true intentions are to muddy the waters to hide the amount of slop contributions in Firefox.

172 points · 46 comments · view on lemmy.world

46 Comments

9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world · 133 pts · 185d (9 replies)

This change is about preventing AI from trying to own the change. A human must own the change.

AI cannot own a Firefox contribution. AI cannot commit code to Firefox. Only a human may do that.

If a human uses AI (or autocomplete / a formatter / a transpiler / whatever else) to help them author code, that doesn't devolve them of responsibility. The human must take ownership and responsibility for the output.

For example, if we later run git-blame on a section of the code, we want to see the human that took responsibility for the code, not some AI.

Firefox's policy on AI code: https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/contributing/ai-coding.html

Agrivar@lemmy.world · 65 pts · 185d (1 reply)

Wait just a minute, that sounds... reasonable?

This won't do! I've already fetched my pitchfork and ignited my torch!

SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 21 pts · 185d

I'm convinced the Brave shills have been posting Firefox misinformation for years

PrinzKasper@feddit.org · 37 pts · 185d

That... Sounds like a good change actually??

Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 185d

Perfect way honestly. Same philosophy we follow. I don't care how you made the PR, you're responsible for it and you need to be able to defend and explain it. If we get a "I don't know, chatGPT told me this" reject.

Prunebutt@slrpnk.net · 18 pts · 185d (1 reply)

How many human eyes of experienced programmers will have looked at the code?

A whoopsie in the web browser is significantly worse than in an... I don't know... than in a vibe-coded so-called "AI" framework/social network. /s

yabbadabaddon@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 184d

We can crash rockets without use of LLMs, thank you very much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88

DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 185d

That's good news! Thanks for looking into it.

Side note, Firefox now has AI settings you have to manually turn off on it's settings.

e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de · -14 pts · 185d (1 reply)

It was horse shit when jakearchibald wrote it; its still horse shit now.

9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 185d

Reygle@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 185d (2 replies)

JFC is the new CEO a plant to burn the browser to the ground?

the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 185d

I would believe you if you told me that. There's not much else to explain it other than incompetence (which I suspect is the actual reason).

jj4211@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d

Nothing is stopping a human contributor from using AI without attribution already.

Let's say there's an issue and you want to include the original stakeholder about the change. Instead you hit a dead end, annotation says AI but no way to reach the human that initiated the change.

wackyheartfluid@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 185d

I'm really going to miss Firefox

egerlach@lemmy.ca · 32 pts · 185d

While I think that this isn't on target, I believe it to be mis-executed rather than misguided: I think they were trying to support their AI Coding Policy by removing any notion that Claude was responsible for the work (therefore leaving the human responsible). What it does in practice of course is just hide AI-generated code. Since the commit setting can be anything you want, I believe a disclaimer that the commit was assisted by Claude but that the committer is considered the author of the code would be a better choice (and I said so on the thread). I hope they improve their choice.

TheSeveralJourneysOfReemus@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 185d (2 replies)

[ removed ]

Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 185d

I’m sure there will be some that won’t. But it will probably be a shockingly small number of them that care enough to not.

neclimdul@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 185d

You tell people they can turn their brain off and trust the AI enough and they might just start doing it.

the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 185d

I have used firefox since it was netscape, so it was a bit sad when I switched to waterfox after they made the bullshit AI announcement. I'm hoping something better comes along but I have little faith it will happen.

potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.space · 10 pts · 185d (1 reply)

Is there any browser engine left? Servo maybe?

If the engine starts getting crappy because of these LLMs, I think the internet enshittified to the maximum.

rain_worl@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 181d

lynx! i think web browsers should be a good thing to make in your free time, not something that requires thousands of ¤. of course, standards are important, so you're also allowed to use a popular browser

Casterial@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 185d (17 replies)

I stopped using Firefox because it was slowly becoming a bug filled mess. It's in the trash with chrome for me now

1984@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 185d (16 replies)

What do you use now?

kadu@scribe.disroot.org · 34 pts · 185d

Likely a Chromium fork made by two teenagers larping as security experts, or a guy trying to sell you NFTs in a very brave manner.

Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 185d (14 replies)

Vivaldi, EU made, fuck AI by default

pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 185d (13 replies)

[ removed ]

Casterial@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 185d (4 replies)

I use Vivaldi and it's miles better than default chrome or Firefox, but it is still chromium.

There's also edge, or opera. But, Vivaldi is nice for its blockers + note taking

pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 185d (3 replies)

[ removed ]

Casterial@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 185d (2 replies)

Firefox has gotten corrupted multiple times for me with normal use, to the point it wasn't worth it. Specifically the user profile.

Ublock is great though.

pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 185d

[ removed ]

Zerush@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 185d (7 replies)

Well, in the case of Vivaldi "proprietary soft" is pretty relative. A small part of it's unique UI is proprietary of Vivaldi, but full auditable, means source available not closed source, even modificable by the user (they show you how, at own risk naturally). There is nothing shady in Vivaldi. employee owned cooperative in Norway.

https://vivaldi.com/source/

https://github.com/ric2b/Vivaldi-browser

pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 185d (6 replies)

[ removed ]

Zerush@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 184d (5 replies)

That is, as said, 5% of the code related to the UI is proprietary, only this isn't allowed to use for other products (eg. Chrome, EDGE), but the user is free to modify it for his Vivaldi browser, they show you even how to do it. The rest is a de-googled Chromium, which is FOSS and other layers with several different OpenSource licenses. For Gecko browsers it's way easier to go full FOSS, because there isn't any big corporation which have browsers with this engine,same for relative basic Chromium forks, but not so with browsers like Vivaldi, which is more an online suite as only an simple browser. It would be a shot in the own knee if Google or MS could fork it freely.

pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 184d

[ removed ]

drdiddlybadger@pawb.social · 1 pts · 185d

Was this linked to a specific report or something? I cannot reach it. Does someone have a backup?

gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 184d (2 replies)

!waterfox@programming.dev

It's firefox minus the slop

winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 183d (1 reply)

LibreWolf for a security and privacy focused version

gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 183d

Yeah also a great option!

Runecrush376@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 185d (11 replies)