1154
where is this AI bloat exactly? I use Firefox every day and see no difference
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
1154 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
73876 readers
3389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is none, this is all AI=bad knee-jerk reaction. From what I can tell, so far Firefox has 3 ML-based systems implemented:
- Site / text translation - fully local, small model, requires manual action from user
- Tab grouping suggestions - fully local, small model, requires manual action from user
- Image alt text generation (when adding images to a PDF) - fully local, small model, looks like it's enabled by default but can be turned off directly in the modal that appears when adding alt text
All of these models are small enough to be quickly run locally on mobile devices with minimal wait time. The CPU spikes appear to be a bug in the inference module implementation - not an intended behavior.
Firefox also provides UI for connecting to cloud-based chatbots on a sidebar, but they need to be manually enabled to be used. The sidebar is also customizable so anyone who doesn't want this button there can just remove it. There's also a setting in about:config that removes it harder.
I actually really like the way Mozilla is introducing these features. I recently had to visit another country's post office site and having the ability to just instantly translate it directly on my device is great.
Same here, I'm on 141.0 Linux. No tab grouping unless I group them. I do see the ai button but have not bothered with it.
I remember tab groups showing up one day by themselves maybe a week ago, and then I quickly clicked about two buttons and now they're totally gone and I almost forgot they were a thing. But likely if I had summarily clicked 2 different buttons it might have been turned on without me realizing it, and that would cause the model to be downloaded and the CPU cycles to be spent (at least if I kept the tab groups on)
Do you have to enable the feature first? Because I'm on v141 and I don't see this feature. Complaining about a useless and draining feature that you yourself enabled is a special kind of stupid tbh.
Bro, several users have taken to the Firefox subreddit, this is definitely worthy of being the most upvoted post on Lemmy rn
Because people seem to have a special hate boner for Firefox on here.
And please don't call me bro.
Edit: hate not hat
There's a lot of negativity from certain users/communities on software/services that are mostly good but have imperfections. I rarely if ever see any recommendations for alternatives that actually make sense when this happens.
Firefox and Proton are two very common targets. Sure, they are both not perfect, but they are both offering a solution that does not enrich the current oppressive market leader and they do a pretty solid job at it.
Yes, flaws deserve to be criticized, but there's such a thing as too much.
It's tiring.
That sums it up pretty nicely.
Just use a fork. I don't know why I would use vanilla Firefox when there are so many great forks out there that have cool extra features.
Forks get security patches with delay so I prefer to use vanilla Firefox and just disable the things I don't like, it's not much work.
This is sarcastic right lol
Mozilla is no longer about making a great browser. Mozilla is about making sure their Google bucks come in each year without fail. They don't work for consumers anymore -- they work for Google.
Throughout the years, the market share of Firefox has shank and shank and their C-Suite has continued giving themselves raises.
Mozilla Inc. has been very sick for a long time. It's a shame that one of the last pieces of honest competition for web browsers belongs to them, because I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to shamble on like this.
Instead of trying to get Google money, I actually wish they would offer a monthly/annual/lifetime membership as the cost of not enshittifying to stay in business. And then severing ties with Google as a company.
A lot of tech companies are holding onto unsustainable business models from 10 years ago to make their products at a loss or "free," and it's forcing them into AI, oligarchy, or being beholden to oligarchs. End users paying a fair price to own the products they use is a better alternative than this because it puts the power back in our hands as opposed to tech bros and shareholders.
One a lifetime membership is not a sustainable business model .
Two people so not want to pay for stuff a small percentage might but the vast majority won't escpically when there is Chrome which is free.
The problem is everyone wants shit got free or 99 cents one time payment for life time upgrades. These are not sustainable business models. Then we complain why are their ads or whatever, well do you work for free? People have to make enough to live.
Much like electricity, lazy boards seek the path of least resistence. What's easier, building a world-class browser and properly marketing it and maintaining profitability, or just setting your default search engine to "Google.com" and cashing the massive check?
At this point, there's very few people even left at Mozilla that could even reverse the trend. Go back and look at their past few years. Other than some minor activity to Firefox, almost all their initiatives are little side missions that last for a few years and then are sunset.
Stuck like Pocket, Mozilla Social, Firefox Send, Firefox OS, etc. The list goes on and on. They invest heavily in some flash in the pan initiative and then ax it off a few years later.
Like the cheap bastards people are they refuse to pay what software costs and here we are. People well not pay for stuff, or expect a one time fee for lifetime support. Software was better when we had released every x years and we just bought that. Want support and new features but new version.
I've never paid for a browser in my life.
People won't pay for that. Or, at least, not enough people.
We literally saw this play out with media. Everyone hated cable tv. Suddenly we had netflix (2.0) where we can "pay for what I want". Except... then everyone got in on that because apparently we want things beyond Netflix Original Pictures and whatever they could get cheap out of Korea.
And now? "Ugh, there are juts so many services. I need like twelve. I wish there was one big bundle of everything".
Not exactly the same but a premium browser (that, again, isn't going to make anywhere near enough money to fund development) would be dropped even faster than the guy whose patreon is still "pay one dollar per episode"
What about Wikipeida? Internet Archive? All of the products/services that live on kickstarter/patreon/gofundme/etc?
People are more than willing to pay for the things that they love, but Mozilla knows that people wouldn't be willing to pay enough to continue floating the Executive salaries. That's why they don't transition.
The orgs that are heavily dependent on federal funding as well as major corporate investors? That run the websites that the vast majority of people just think is free?
Again, we've seen how this plays out with Patreon et al. Everyone says it is totally viable because the ridiculously popular people make bank. And as more and more celebrities flock to it, there is less and less money for the "small creators" and so forth.
Also, Firefox and Thunderbird are backed by the Mozilla Foundation which is already doing exactly that.
I feel like I'm mis-understanding your argument. Are you saying that Mozilla can't do things that other groups are already successfully doing, because "The popular people make too much money" doing it, and "They are already getting that via the Mozilla Foundation"?
That doesn't make sense to me.
The point is that they are already doing what those orgs are doing. They are dealing with a userbase that doesn't want to give them money by getting large amounts from special interest groups and corporations.
Which is why the Wikimedia (?) Foundation pushed REAL hard for AI until basically the entire editorbase told them to fuck off.
But hey? There is obviously infinite money so yeah, I am sure if Mozilla drops all those corporate interests and just switches to an optional patreon they would have even MORE money than they already do and would have no need to placate said special interests.
The userbase does want to give them money though. I constantly hear people say that they want to donate to Firefox, but Mozilla doesn't let them do that.
Also, I never said that Patreon would give them more money. It would be less money, but it would be more effective, as they could finally ditch the worthless exectutives that keep draining Mozilla's resources.
The userbase does want to give them money though
- Citation requested
- Good for the massive waves of people who want to give Mozilla money. They already can https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/?form=donate-header
It would be less money, but it would be more effective
Oh yeah. I LOVE when my boss tells me that I am going to get paid less but I will be more effective because of it. Oh, wait, no I don't.
Honestly? it sounds like you don't care about reality and just care about things being ideologically pure for you with the expectation that it will all work out. So... maybe try to educate yourself on any of all this before trying to have a discussion about it?
A huge problem with America's and many other economic systems is that companies are incentivized to undercut the competition, use a monopoly growth model, acquire or push out competitors, and then screw the customer when the competitors are either gone or irrelevant.
Without guardrails, the bubble will burst and some other "affordable solution" will just show up to replace streaming, and then we'll start all over again before it enshittifies too. But there won't be guardrails anytime soon, and most refuse or are unable to vote with their wallets, so we're just screwed.
I don't know what the solution is, but as a consumer, I'm exhausted. I wish there were options to just buy products, sometimes more expensive ones to keep a steady, sustainable business model, for piece of mind that the company won't stab me in the back someday.
In a perfect world? Yeah, I would love to just spend money and get what I want forever.
The problem is that most of these products would never exist without external funding. We all remember Microsoft getting slapped hard for bundling internet explorer and the like in the 90s. What people don't remember is just how GOOD IE was... because it was largely subsidized by the OS et al that everyone bought because it was that damned good. Netscape was very much A Thing and anything else was more or less trash.
Same thing with the idea of "use a monopoly growth model". What is the alternative? Actively making a product worse because everyone else is? Because that is collusion. Hell, if anything, browsers for the past few years have been exactly what we would theoretically want. Google are the de facto monopoly. They literally pumped insane amounts of cash into Mozilla et al to fund their competition so there would actually BE competition.
Same thing with the idea of “use a monopoly growth model”. What is the alternative? Actively making a product worse because everyone else is? Because that is collusion.
This question really highlights the danger of the growth-at-all-costs model in forcing every company to race to the bottom when one company does. The future of the human race may one day depend on killing technological progress and emphasizing stability over profits.
As somebody who is out of the loop a bit here, how is Morzilla making money through Googhe?
Firefox really does seem to have lost the plot... they don't seem to go five minutes without slamming their dick in another drawer. It starts to look like they're in to it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Finally using Firefox ESR helped me
TBH despite I don't like this specific idea, nor use Firefox directly, I do like the usage of local inference vs sending your data to thirdparty to do AI.
They just needed to do it OPT IN, not OPT OUT.
It is though.
then why the fuck is this newsworthy? ugh. Why is there such a huge hateboner for firefox lately?
A lot of people would rather sit around and tear down the progress being made around them for being imperfect, than pitch in to help change things for the better.
I really don't get it either.
It's not like it's a paid product either.
Because they keep betraying their supposed values for short-term gains.
Literally no one on this green earth asked for this shit. In fact, we've been pretty direct about how much we don't want it.
It's exhausting.
load more comments
(19 replies)
According to the article, this is mainly for grouping tabs with a suggested name. Talk about backwards. Use AI to process the top websites on the Internet and create groups and/or logic to group them by keywords (cluster analysis), then save the small data structure in Firefox so it can group most websites instantly, using kilobytes of ram in the process; don't try to do this on everyone's device ffs.
Besides the heat and battery problem, this also means that the GUI is going to be non-deterministic, suggesting groups differently day-to-day based on the slight differences of input and the whims of the LLM. Burn it with fire.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The pathological need to find something to use LLMs for is so bizzare.
It’s like the opposite of classic ML, relatively tiny special purpose models trained for something critical, out of desperation, because it just can’t be done well conventionally.
But this:
AI-enhanced tab groups. Powered by a local AI model, these groups identify related tabs and suggest names for them. There is even a "Suggest more tabs for group" button that users can click to get recommendations.
Take out the word AI.
Enhanced tab groups. Powered by a local algorithm, these groups identify related tabs and suggest names for them. There is even a "Suggest more tabs for group" button that users can click to get recommendations.
If this feature took, say, a gigabyte of RAM and a bunch of CPU, it would be laughed out. But somehow it ships because it has the word AI in it? That makes no sense.
I am a massive local LLM advocate. I like “generative” ML, within reason and ethics. But this is just stupid.
load more comments
(34 replies)
view more: next ›