The problem is that the users seem not to ask for it. To the contrary, they seek ways to opt out.
I don't want the AI to be front and center in my browser. I do want the AI, if present, be local, and be distributed among tools: a better reading mode, fuzzy search on the page that searches by meaning, recognizing text on images (and also make it searchable and selectable), creature comforts like that.
If I need to chat with an LLM, I want it to not be bound to my browser.
And yes, I want to never need to start Chromium because a rare specific site refuses to work correctly in Firefox. If AI can help with that, splendid! But I suspect something else may be needed more.
A browser user agent is a string of text that a web browser sends to a web server to identify itself and provide information about the browser's capabilities, such as its type, version, and the operating system it runs on.
This has nothing to do with what an AI “agent” is.
The AI hate is unreasonably strong right now. People are acting like adding one feature they don't like or need to a browser is a borderline critical offense because it is an AI feature. I find it shocking how quickly the public in the US/EU developed this sort of hate towards one of the most interesting technology of the last decades.
Let's say you went to a library to find a book for a thesis. But instead the librarian instead on spinning tales and waste your time. It's fun when in a comedy show, but not so fun when you want to get something done. LLM technology is nice, but not everyone wants an hallucination machine, especially on their own computer. It would be another matter if Mozilla, Google, or Microsoft were offering free laptops.
A browser is there for retrieving documents on behalf of the user, not to add its own spin to it. It's already bad with everyone and their dog wanted to abuse the user computation power with "apps" where it should be simple forms and listing.
Firefox should be the browser that respects you privacy (the only one...). Integrating AI undermining the efforts of making it the privacy oriented browser.
For now the AI is forced and ridiculously complicated to disable (with new options in about:config poping in each new version).
The promise to have an "disable all IA features" is still a promise.
"A web browser, often shortened to browser, is an application for accessing websites. When a user requests a web page from a particular website, the browser retrieves its files from a web server and then displays the page on the user's screen."
This is awesome but it cuts off what’s underneath.
Show the “full image” with a pond of Google and Microsoft crocodiles. Because that’s what’s really going to happen. Mozilla’s little fox is going to get eaten alive.
I actually feel like these integrations are fine, as long as they are opt-in or easily opt-outable of permanently. For now, I don't see the harm in adding another default search engine, it's much less obstrusive than the home page sponsored links. And if it gets them a little more independent from google by siphoning perplexity's seemingly infinite vc investment money, so be it.
Is it though? To me the animal on logos used by Firefox [1] always looked more similar to a red fox [2] than a red panda. Note pointy nose with the bottom colored white. Even the latest logo that shows more of the side of the face lacks the kind of patterns distinctive of the red panda. The -fire part of the name seemed to be represented by the flaming tail, not the animal itself.
Yes, especially the first Firefox logo has a distinct snout. I have no primary source to quote, but there are plenty claims, referencing each other, that the name stems from the nickname of the red panda.
I was wondering if there is any official statement about the name.
But it seems most common to think of a (speedy?) fox with a flaming tail. How to derive a dog's burning relative from a phoenix seems to remain uncertain.
David Revoy is the artist who made the painting, this is his blog. The "source" link is to be understood in the sense of open source. Unlike most artists, he shares the raw editor files he worked on, not just the final image. So you can learn something about his creative process if you want to.
Something we haven't observed yet are hyperlinks automatically created from a web of documents. This is usually a manual process: which word or words to select, and which specific URL to go to.
It's not exactly a template-meme, or whatever low-effort memes are called now (the ragefaces, the reaction gifs, the deep-fried slop).
I think something like xkcd comics or something similar has always been received well by the community. Given that it's a high-effort piece of content as a digital painting, I think it should be ok - or at least not treated like it's in the same bucket as memes.
There are a lot of reasons to not like Mozilla, but it's crazy to be against them for AI.
A browser is literally a user agent. What well-funded org should be entrusted with making an open source agent for the user instead?
The problem is that the users seem not to ask for it. To the contrary, they seek ways to opt out.
I don't want the AI to be front and center in my browser. I do want the AI, if present, be local, and be distributed among tools: a better reading mode, fuzzy search on the page that searches by meaning, recognizing text on images (and also make it searchable and selectable), creature comforts like that.
If I need to chat with an LLM, I want it to not be bound to my browser.
And yes, I want to never need to start Chromium because a rare specific site refuses to work correctly in Firefox. If AI can help with that, splendid! But I suspect something else may be needed more.
A browser user agent is a string of text that a web browser sends to a web server to identify itself and provide information about the browser's capabilities, such as its type, version, and the operating system it runs on.
This has nothing to do with what an AI “agent” is.
The AI hate is unreasonably strong right now. People are acting like adding one feature they don't like or need to a browser is a borderline critical offense because it is an AI feature. I find it shocking how quickly the public in the US/EU developed this sort of hate towards one of the most interesting technology of the last decades.
Let's say you went to a library to find a book for a thesis. But instead the librarian instead on spinning tales and waste your time. It's fun when in a comedy show, but not so fun when you want to get something done. LLM technology is nice, but not everyone wants an hallucination machine, especially on their own computer. It would be another matter if Mozilla, Google, or Microsoft were offering free laptops.
A browser is there for retrieving documents on behalf of the user, not to add its own spin to it. It's already bad with everyone and their dog wanted to abuse the user computation power with "apps" where it should be simple forms and listing.
The problem with AI is privacy.
Firefox should be the browser that respects you privacy (the only one...). Integrating AI undermining the efforts of making it the privacy oriented browser.
For now the AI is forced and ridiculously complicated to disable (with new options in about:config poping in each new version). The promise to have an "disable all IA features" is still a promise.
"A web browser, often shortened to browser, is an application for accessing websites. When a user requests a web page from a particular website, the browser retrieves its files from a web server and then displays the page on the user's screen."
This is awesome but it cuts off what’s underneath.
Show the “full image” with a pond of Google and Microsoft crocodiles. Because that’s what’s really going to happen. Mozilla’s little fox is going to get eaten alive.
I actually feel like these integrations are fine, as long as they are opt-in or easily opt-outable of permanently. For now, I don't see the harm in adding another default search engine, it's much less obstrusive than the home page sponsored links. And if it gets them a little more independent from google by siphoning perplexity's seemingly infinite vc investment money, so be it.
2%. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
We've got nowhere to go but up -- 2026 is sure to be the year of Firefox on the desktop
Should have made the bird an anthropomorphized version of the Firebird phoenix IMO
(For the younger hackers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mozilla_Phoenix_logo_vect...)
It looks like that because it's a "stochastic parrot".
The cute fox could have been a cute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_panda, which the "Firefox" is referencing afaik.
Is it though? To me the animal on logos used by Firefox [1] always looked more similar to a red fox [2] than a red panda. Note pointy nose with the bottom colored white. Even the latest logo that shows more of the side of the face lacks the kind of patterns distinctive of the red panda. The -fire part of the name seemed to be represented by the flaming tail, not the animal itself.
[1] https://logos-world.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Firefox-L...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox
Yes, especially the first Firefox logo has a distinct snout. I have no primary source to quote, but there are plenty claims, referencing each other, that the name stems from the nickname of the red panda. I was wondering if there is any official statement about the name. But it seems most common to think of a (speedy?) fox with a flaming tail. How to derive a dog's burning relative from a phoenix seems to remain uncertain.
Well, red pandas are more likely to live up trees than foxes are.
why did you link that instead of the original source (https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/viewer/misc__2025-12-18_Shhh...) , since it's already linked in the page?
David Revoy is the artist who made the painting, this is his blog. The "source" link is to be understood in the sense of open source. Unlike most artists, he shares the raw editor files he worked on, not just the final image. So you can learn something about his creative process if you want to.
Is it coming for the branch or the fox?
Something we haven't observed yet are hyperlinks automatically created from a web of documents. This is usually a manual process: which word or words to select, and which specific URL to go to.
See also: https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/viewer/misc__2024-09-18_mozi... , https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/viewer/misc__2025-02-27_How-...
There’s no money to be made in writing privacy respecting web browsers lol. Give Mozilla a break.
HN is for sharing memes now?
Pleading in essays hasn't gotten the point across.
It's not exactly a template-meme, or whatever low-effort memes are called now (the ragefaces, the reaction gifs, the deep-fried slop).
I think something like xkcd comics or something similar has always been received well by the community. Given that it's a high-effort piece of content as a digital painting, I think it should be ok - or at least not treated like it's in the same bucket as memes.