@null_dot If all of the not Firefox users are AI-shills, then I don’t think we’re missing much from excluding them.
And what value? Wasting a load of water just for the chatbot to tell you that “strawberry” has 2 r’s in it? There is nothing generative-AI can do that other tech can’t do better and costing far less resources.
The “value” of generative-AI outside of highly niche scenarios is an illusion. For example, people think generative-AI in the workplace improves productivity when it actually does the opposite: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2025/10/02/ai-workslop-could-be-the-biggest-threat-to-productivity/
This is a good quote from that article: “A recent MIT Media Lab report found that 95% of organizations see no measurable return on their AI investments. Workslop helps explain why. When employees use AI to create low-effort output that shifts the burden downstream, any productivity gains are lost.”
Generative-AI has also actively made search engines worse, especially with their “summaries” containing significant errors about 50% of the time: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m17d8827ko
And I can go on and on. There is an entire laundry list why generative is just… not it, and whatever “value” people get from these can be gotten elsewhere, usually in higher quality and more ethically than relying on this tech.
@null_dot Even if that were true, that doesn’t consider the fact that generative-AI is a money black hole and literally the only company type profiting from this bubble are ones like Nvidia that are producing the graphics cards these models use. Generative-AI is not and will not be profitable; Mozilla is losing money by shilling this tech.
So even if you do attract a high volume of users by shoving in generative-AI (which I DOUBT), I doubt that would offset the money burning from running these models. It’s not a smart business move, either for users who despise the tech or users who love it. It’s a lose-lose.