How can you justify such a wildly conclusive statement without providing any supporting information? It's not just the "HN Bubble", recent articles on The Register discuss how there is no way to guarantee the information provided to the 3rd party LLM servers in the prompting is free from further disclosure. This raises a host of concerns for professionals with a non-deligable duty to safeguard client/patient information from disclosure. To the point that if LLM captures that information, by definition the attorney or physician has disclosed client/patient information putting their license to practice law or medicine at risk.

Exacerbating the matter is there is zero disclosure on Mozilla's part detailing exactly what information is sent to 3rd party servers as part of its AI rollout in FF 145. Would you risk your license on some FOMO AI rollout in FF that, unless you, as the lawyer or doctor, have stepped though each line of the tens of thousands of lines of FF code associated with this new AI to meet your ethical obligation and answer the bar or medical board's inquiry on whether client/patient information has been sent to a 3rd party?

Without the ability to completely disable and turn all AI submissions off, Mozilla's "Trust Us" position doesn't allow anyone with such a duty to meet it. This is before you even get to confidential and proprietary or trade-secret type information applicable in any professional setting.

These are all vexing questions from a legal standpoint.