this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025

459 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

77090 readers

3483 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

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

459

Mozilla’s new CEO is doubling down on an AI future for Firefox (www.theverge.com)

submitted 18 hours ago by azdle@news.idlestate.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

156 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mozilla is in a tricky position. It contains both a nonprofit organization dedicated to making the internet a better place for everyone, and a for-profit arm dedicated to, you know, making money. In the best of times, these things feed each other: The company makes great products that advance its goals for the web, and the nonprofit gets to both advocate for a better web and show people what it looks like. But these are not the best of times. Mozilla has spent the last couple of years implementing layoffs and restructuring, attempting to explain how it can fight for privacy and openness when Google pays most of its bills, while trying to find its place in an increasingly frothy AI landscape.

Fun times to be the new Mozilla CEO, right? But when I put all that to Anthony Enzor-DeMeo, the company’s just-announced chief executive, he swears he sees opportunity in all the upheaval. “I think what’s actually needed now is a technology company that people can trust,” Enzor-DeMeo says. “What I’ve seen with AI is an erosion of trust.”

Mozilla is not going to train its own giant LLM anytime soon. But there’s still an AI Mode coming to Firefox next year, which Enzor-DeMeo says will offer users their choice of model and product, all in a browser they can understand and from a company they can trust. “We’re not incentivized to push one model or the other,” he says. “So we’re going to try to go to market with multiple models.”

-_-

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] FaceDeer@fedia.io -11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Most people in tech that I know hate AI

Emphasis added. We all live inside social bubbles, if one wants to talk about what most people in general believe then one must use data from beyond that. Otherwise you're going to get a very biased sample, since we generally choose to associate with people who share our own personal values.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with using unbiased data, but where is yours?

[+] FaceDeer@fedia.io -6 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Data for the claim that lots of tech-savvy people are developing and using AI? Some of the biggest tech companies in the world right now have an AI focus. NVIDIA, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, they're all making massive use of AI. If you want to discount "corporate" tech-savvy people, This page indicates 15 million developers are using GitHub Copilot. Linus Torvalds has spoken in favor of using AI to maintain Linux, if you'd like someone specific and big-name as an example.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

tech bros and their employees lmao

and Linus has said some stupid shit over the years

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

the keyword word you missed was "unbiased"

of course the AI peddlers will peddle it and their employees would probably be fired if they did not toe the company line

on the otheer hand, that mit studyshowed 95v of them failed… I find it hard to believe people enjoy failing

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So we've moved from "no tech-savvy people use AI!" to "lots of tech-savvy people use AI, but many of them fail to make it profitable!"

The Commerce Institute puts that 95% figure in perspective, about 65.3% of all businesses fail by their tenth year. That's not focusing just on a particular industry that's the most unknown and volatile one, that's everything, including fields that have been well known and understood for decades. And I should also note, your source said 95% had yet to grow their revenue, not that 95% had failed - it's only been a year or two for most.

Your own source provides some other bits of information that support my view, too. Just look past the bias in how it's worded.

Previous tests show even the most advanced AI products successfully complete only about 30 percent of assigned office tasks.

Wow, only 30% of office tasks can be handled by AI? Clearly a useless technology, throw it away.

Or maybe 30% is actually quite an impressive number. Wouldn't you like something that handles 30% of your routine work for you?

Gartner’s survey of 163 business executives found that half have abandoned plans to dramatically cut customer service staff by 2027.

So, half of them haven't abandoned those plans.

Research from GoTo and Workplace Intelligence found that 62 percent of workers believe AI is “significantly overhyped.”

I don't see a link to that research, but that means 38% don't believe AI is significantly overhyped.

I never said everyone liked AI, just that lots of tech-savvy people did. I think 38% would count as null

Basically, you're falling into the trap of assuming if something's not perfect and not universally loved then it must be awful and universally hated. Communities like this reinforce that view, but the real world outside these digital walls is not like that.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So we’ve moved from “no tech-savvy people use AI!” to “lots of tech-savvy people use AI, but many of them fail to make it profitable!”

No, we are trying to tease out if "tech savvy people" use AI at gun point or not because if it is at gun point, it disarms your argument

The Commerce Institute puts that 95% figure in perspective, about 65.3% of all businesses fail by their tenth year. That’s not focusing just on a particular industry that’s the most unknown and volatile one, that’s everything, including fields that have been well known and understood for decades. And I should also note, your source said 95% had yet to grow their revenue, not that 95% had failed - it’s only been a year or two for most.

These are not new business (not all at least, these are already viable businesses trying to reap the promises of AI and failing miserably. You can interpret however you want but I interpret that as "most of these business bought the snake oil and it did not cure their hiccups"

Wow, only 30% of office tasks can be handled by AI? Clearly a useless technology, throw it away.

Again, what is the expectation being sold out there? 30 % increase in preformance? or "we WOn'T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars"?

So, half of them haven’t abandoned those plans.

Meaning what? sunk cost fallacy? deeper pockets to hold on and see if they can fix it? deeper pockets and being able to hide the huge mistake this was? I can speculate in the opposite direction you are, just as easily

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

If my job depends on saying you are correct... Mr. FaceDeer you are always correct, the most correct ever.

This ties to my previous comment that we need to find unbiased sources and that would include people that use AI because they want to, not because their livelihood depends on it

Basically, you’re falling into the trap of assuming if something’s not perfect and not universally loved then it must be awful

Not even close... what I am seeing is that AI peddlers promised elephants but they are delivering something that looks like a large dog with no cool trunk

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

30 % increase in preformance? or "we WOn'T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars"?

You think people aren't going to want to use AI unless it does literally everything for them? That's exactly the "if something's not perfect then it must be awful" mindset I was criticizing in the comment you're responding to.

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

If my job depends on saying you are correct... Mr. FaceDeer you are always correct, the most correct ever.

You are now arguing that the source that you yourself brought into this discussion is no good.

This is ridiculous.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

You think people aren’t going to want to use AI unless it does literally everything for them? That’s exactly the “if something’s not perfect then it must be awful” mindset I was criticizing in the comment you’re responding to.

NOT AT ALL... I am simply claiming AI is NOT living nearly close to the expectations the peddlers have raised. I'm not saying if it's not perfect it must be bad, I am saying it is disappointing

I don’t see a link to that research, but that means 38% don’t believe AI is significantly overhyped.

Not even close again... if I can prove I did not kill the Sheriff, this is not prove I did not kill the deputy. Maybe ALL of that 38% think AI is just over hyped (not significantly)

You are now arguing that the source that you yourself brought into this discussion is no good.

Again no, my source was there simply to state AI projects are failing left, right and center and I have made very clear that I am speculating from that (and my own experience) that tech savvy people do not like AI

See, I cannot hide a project that failed spectacularly... but I can smile nervously in my boss' office telling the reporter I, in no way, blame the shit tech that he forced us to use.