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.”
-_-
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
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.
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?
So, half of them haven’t abandoned those plans.
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.
In the US, the number of adults using ChatGPT has been increasing, whether for work, learning something new, or entertainment.
And what’s most interesting is that those who use ChatGPT the most are people with postgraduate degrees, followed by those with bachelor’s degrees, college, and high school (who use it the least).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-adults-have-used-chatgpt-about-double-the-share-in-2023/
It is interesting, IMO, that with AI we see the opposite of the usual trend; the fancy new disruptive technology seems to be liked more by the older crowd, and less by the younger ones.
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
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”
Again, what is the expectation being sold out there? 30 % increase in preformance? or “we WOn’T nEEd progRAmMers iN 3 yEars”?
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
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
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
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.
You are now arguing that the source that you yourself brought into this discussion is no good.
This is ridiculous.
Gross ai shill
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
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)
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.