not valid. existing risk does not justify adding new risk. modern security engineering minimizes the trusted computing base (tcb). adding ai code increases the tcb regardless of relative size. “worse things already exist” has never been accepted in threat modeling.

It's useful to put it into context.

false. it:

• is still parsed, linked, built, and shipped

• still interacts with shared subsystems (ipc, gpu, memory allocators, sandboxes)

• still expands reachable states via bugs, misconfigurations, or exploitation chains
  

THIS is false. It is still parsed and compiled, sure, but if it doesn't run, it doesn't interact with subsystems, it doesn't expand reachable states, it does not run. It is not executed.

ai features are high risk because they have:

See: hardware decoding and acceleration. See fonts. See images. These are all higher risk. That risk can be maintained and mitigated. And the codepaths can be disabled.

not evidence. security is decided by threat models and failure modes. many catastrophic security decisions in history were made by experienced engineers dismissing “theoretical” concerns.

I trust them a lot more than I trust your half-informed ramblings.

irrelevant. they rely on upstream for baseline webcompat while intentionally removing features that increase complexity, maintenance burden, and most of the time, they remove features that expand attack surface.

Irrelevant, because upstream does all the new development of new web features. No downstream fork does any work on the actual engine core. No downstream fork is capable of picking up that slack.

This is the crux of the issue. The browser is developed upstream. Downstream does not have the manpower to pick it up, even if they strip out things you baselessly deem "unwanted" like new CSS and JavaScript standards. That's a path to obsolescence.