> Maybe we shouldn't be too critical of Mozilla for providing a privacy-first LLM service - for free. The other big privacy-first LLM provider is Apple, which requires users to have their devices/subscriptions to use, and definitely uses advanced telemetry by default.
There is a very fundamental critique here: a service being offered for free like this is being subsidized, messing with the general market dynamics that really should be making all of these tools cost way more money to begin with.
Of course Apple is also doing similar things, but for Mozilla to be doing it is quite frustrating.
There is a fundamental difference between a "regular" foss project and a "free" service in this sense.
Once a foss project has been written, the cost of one additional user is almost zero (some small amount of bandwidth to obtain the package).
I think it's legitimate to worry even about how the funding occurs for those comparatively small costs: the costs of running GitHub (subsidized by M$) and distribution repositories.
But with an LLM service, or any other service which does not run locally, the cost of one additional user is very real. It has to be paid by someone.
I’m not a market fundamentalist, I just don’t like players dumping huge piles of cash in ways to get around market dynamics (especially for AI summaries, which is the computer equivalent of speed reading lessons)
At least open source can outlive the entities that create the thing, and in theory is more about sharing process rather than trying to stomp out smaller players.
I do agree with your sentiment on cost, especially regarding exploding co2 emissions for LLMs, but it sounds like you're putting the blame mostly on Mozilla for what is market dynamics in capitalism, with most of the contenders being heavily VC-funded, and where Mozilla maybe just tries to signal that "AI" can be done responsibly also. If they don't try, people will blame them for "being late to the game/out of touch/ irrelevant" - so better to do it according to your principles and in-time I think.
> mozilla is a non-profit so doesn't need to respond to market signals.
No? They, just like every other entity, will have to achieve it's investors goals using the least amount of costs possible.
It just happens to be the case that Mozilla's investor's goals aren't more money.
For example, if a non-profit wants to build a bridge to a small island to provide the children of that island access to the mainland's schools; that non-profit would still be very susceptible to market signals regarding the most cost-efficient materials for bridge-building.
It is precisely because of current market signals that this move is a bad move for Mozilla. If GPUs were a dime a dozen and an AI engineer cost a thousand times less to employ than a browser engineer, Mozilla offering an LLM service would be a lot less objectionable than in the current economy.
> No? They, just like every other entity, will have to achieve it's investors goals using the least amount of costs possible.
The Mozilla Foundation is funded by donors not investors. The fiduciary duties of non-profit directors do not have to include using the least amount of costs possible.
The Mozilla Foundation's stated goals are "to advance the vision of the future of the internet and technology".
You might reasonably argue that this means copy catting every other product by slapping AI on itself, but I would counter that this actually demonstrates a lack of vision.
FF is still a solid choice, privacy-wise (with some manual tweaking), but just in the past few years 80-90% of their revenue came from adtech partnerships, so expect a series of rug pulls like the recent ones.
Being a non-profit that does not have a share-price, I'm curious if you have evidence for validity of your assessment of "big swings resulting in compensation packages".
I can offer a rationale that I hope that will be interesting. Evidence is more effort than I'm willing to invest in a random internet conversation. I hope that's okay. I don't mean to cause offense, but neither do I like having an interesting discussion shutdown.
Executive leadership compensation tends to be based on,
- the size/prospects/complexity of the company
- the compensation received by executives in similar roles at other companies
- the amount/type of oversight by the board
This incentivizes executives to increase the complexity of their role in order to justify greater remuneration. The classic example is turning a widget factory into a widget financial services provider. In this case, by behaving like Silicon Valley companies chasing the latest fad the executive leadership of Mozilla get to demand the same remuneration packages.
Fair enough. However, first of all, it's still in beta. They’re likely using it to gather feedback on its performance.
Also, there’s nothing on the site that says it will remain free. Considering Mozilla has introduced paid services like VPN, and given the cost of running LLMs, it’s unlikely it will stay free.
Also consider that some free use, for example 5 summaries per hour or whatever, is a pretty basic offer for any kind of software, not just LLMs.
Offering beta services for free is industry standard and legit, as are free capped tiers, I do not see an issue there.
Honestly, I'm all on board for a privacy-minded company like Mozilla to offer paid services like VPN or email aliases. They have earned their trust, and if paying means contributing to the sustainability of their mission and the open internet, than that's even sweeter.
Does Orbit not work with Firefox Developer Edition? I had the browser open, but after downloading the extension it didn't seem to detect it or install it.
> messing with the general market dynamics that really should be making all of these tools cost way more money to begin with.
Prices have been dropping very rapidly due to technological progress. I feel like a lot of threads recently have had people confused about costs because they either are stuck on prices they learned about 6-12 months ago, or because they're failing to project further rapid reductions of price (I can't predict the future myself, but I'm not gonna bet on inference prices stabilizing all of a sudden.)
I mean, it definitely costs more than FREE. But I think it's closer to free than many commenters realize, and continuing to go that direction faster than many commenters realize.
There is a very fundamental critique here: a service being offered for free like this is being subsidized, messing with the general market dynamics that really should be making all of these tools cost way more money to begin with.
Of course Apple is also doing similar things, but for Mozilla to be doing it is quite frustrating.