Google Chrome silently installs a 4 GB AI model on your device without consent(thatprivacyguy.com) |
Google Chrome silently installs a 4 GB AI model on your device without consent(thatprivacyguy.com) |
Javascript running on a page can use a feature that requires a model to be downloaded.
I have pages that use it, or other LLM models via LiteRT or HuggingFace transformers.js.
I try to warn the user, but that is my responsibility as a page author. I like that this is enabling the web platform to remain competitive.
The author is pulling a long bow by trying to claim this is some GDPR violation. Have they ever used the web? There are inefficient sites everywhere, with autoplaying video etc.
4GB isn't nothing, but if a page wants to use it then hopefully it is useful to the user!
If you don't like be treated like anything but human, you should seriously consider replacing chrome with ungoogled chromium or other browsers.
A local Gemini Nano might be useful!
Maybe manually point to a local endpoint with one of the multiple 100s of GBs of models that I already downloaded? Even better
Don't even know what the model is for... but as things are, one of the alternatives would probably be send high amounts of user data to google which is worse. I would personally pay to have a 4GB download and keep my data/privacy
So this is an odd take from a "privacy guy"
The logic around not providing access to model version to prevent fingerprinting is laughable when the suggestion to counteract fingerprinting from prompting is the model should only update when user agent string updates. Just put the damn API behind a explicit user permission.
That is actually an interesting question. I would think that any given amount of processing is at least slightly more efficient when running on large-scale cloud hardware, but I have no idea whether it's a few percent or 75%. There's also some overhead, so maybe there's no gain for smaller jobs.
Google should have asked.
Oh my god thats terrible I hope you continue this article in this mode and dont pivot to some unsubstantiated bs claim that makes absolutely no sense...
>At a billion-device scale the climate costs are insane.
sigh.
Imagine if everyone on the planet start using a memory hogging, cpu chugging browser application what a terrible hazard that would be for the climate.
Oh and it might have an AI component in it.
This claim is worse than the AI in data centers boiling the earth claims.
We can measure carbon released down to the watt. If you have an issue with people using power, shut up and talk to your government about carbon taxation/moving to alternative power sources. trying to shame some power users, quite arbitrarily isn't just senseless its self defeating. Its a measurement problem, the second people start getting shaky measurements of what their neighbors are doing, they start trying to shift the blame.
This is satire, obviously.
Yes, 4GB of unintended traffic can absolutely wreck someone's finances.
Hell, a few hours of browsing Tiktok or Youtube will take more bandwidth.
This is fake engagement bait.
On the one hand, Waymo seems to have a better safety record than Tesla does. That's not nothing. For someone nominally in charge of SpaceX like Elon is, it's a red flag
On the other, Google does things like this with Chrome, and also they arguably censor. It's irritating
npm install …
Here chrome is just installing things behind your back, whether you really want it or not.
He even boasts about it on twitter.
Meanwhile car batteries are draining faster. Costing the consumer electricity & battery cycle life.
Google Chrome just exists to make Google money at your expense, to sell your data and deplete your battery.
Firefox is dependent on Google for funding, but not for source code. Brave is dependent on Google for source code, but not for funding. Safari is dependent on neither but Apple locks down the experience.
Hopefully Ladybird will deliver us from our Google dependence in a year or two. It's already usable for very light web browsing. I wrote this comment on Ladybird.
I haven't touched a Chrome browser in a very long time and I just hope that other vendors don't take a similar route.
You can also ask why the US government fails to protect the users. Corporate dictatorship at its finest.
Can it be the basis for nano-openclaw?
Can I use it to run a Karpathy optimization loop?
> the features that do use the local model (Help-Me-Write in <textarea>, tab-group AI suggestions, smart paste, page summary) are buried in textarea-context menus and tab-group right-click menus
The thing about these kind of arguments is that any economic activity or any sort of action involves some load on climate. The magnitudes are important.
In this case: a single hamburger does the same amount of emissions as 50 such downloads. What’s really the point of this kind of virtue signalling?
Hamburger is usually held up as a grotesque example in climate talk and can't be consumed with a clear conscious so are downloads insanely worse than we thought or is a hamburger not even in the same realm of climate damage as usually claimed.
> The roughly 4 GB × N devices of disk-storage cost, sustained, on user hardware. SSDs have a per-GB embodied carbon cost of approximately 0.16 kg CO2e per GB of NAND manufactured [18]
The estimated environmental aspect of the download also seems like an overblown point, noted for sensationalism. There are always hand-wavy numbers involved and I had to look no further than the quote above to find evidence of this. The reference for [18], "The dirty secret of SSDs: embodied carbon", incorrectly links to "Toward Carbon-Aware Networking" and makes no mention of the environmental cost of SSDs. After looking up "The Dirty Secret of SSDs: Embodied Carbon" myself, I was able to see the same methodologies as I was expecting used [1].
> We conducted an analysis encompassing 94 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reports, which collectively quantify the embodied cost of SSDs. Owing to the scarcity of direct and up-to-date LCA studies focused specifically on SSDs. We compiled a dataset comprising LCA reports pertaining to Server, Workstation, Desktop, Laptop, and Chromebook products, all of which feature SSDs
All these studies rely on metrics extrapolated from layered assumptions and end up being used by those who try to use them as objective numbers.
on android aicore: mediatek, qualcomm, aosp vendors, and google will pull down models you cant touch
..will tell you everything you need to know - including model state, file path, device capabilities, etc.
And there's a single button to uninstall the model.
There is also the ability to load a model from a central location, as suggested by another commenter here, although I haven't tested it yet.
The official chrome.dev Prompt API Playground linked in the thread doesn't work.
Chatgpt made a me tiny chrome extension to test the prompt and summariser api's when they announced last year - my laptop wasn't capable the time but these newer models are obviously smaller and more efficient, so it has sprung into life.
Full prompt and code is on pastebin `7Ja3ATHZ` if anyone wants to test quickly. It summarises the current page and brainstorms app ideas based on the summary.
https://chrome.dev/web-ai-demos/summarization-api-playground...
and you can watch it generate the output token by token in the Event Logs:
chrome://on-device-internals/
I blame the kids these days (waggles fist), downloading their Pokiman shows at 4-5gb a pop! No respect for their disk space limited elders.
I'm actually gonna have to uninstall Chrome from a few machines tonight.
Which apparently means it'll never install btw, even if I were to run Chrome. Another comment said they check for 22GB free space
4gb definitely isn’t a negligible amount of space on most people’s devices.
The quite successful it would seem MacBook Neo has 256GB of storage in its base configuration.
A MacBook Air and a basic sub $1000 Dell laptop starts at 512GB.
> To put 4gb in context, I currently have 2 tabs open that nearly take up 4gb.
You are conflating disk and memory.
> The fact Chrome also has a way to disable this makes it kind of a nothingburger in my opinion.
There’s a reason they picked an opt-out model for this, and not an opt-in approach.
But I also see the point in it. We recently did a hackathon, and I considered relying on Gemma 4 for privacy considerations. The local model could interpret the user’s natural language request and derive less privacy revealing requests to form based on that.
But then, a web app that shows people a loading screen while it downloads a 4GB model probably wouldn’t be a best-selling UX.
I never conflated anything. I said it's a neglible amount of space for current hardware, which I still believe.
If anything, the fact that I think the amount of space is acceptable for the amount of ram a modern laptop has exaggerates the point.
> There’s a reason they picked an opt-out model for this, and not an opt-in approach.
That's the approach they take for most of their features.
> But then, a web app that shows people a loading screen while it downloads a 4GB model probably wouldn’t be a best-selling UX.
Which seems to be the motivation of having these local models embedded in the browser's available resources: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
The good point in this article is about how the "AI" features in Chrome all use Google's cloud API and not a local model. That's true and some of it should be local. ("AI mode" uses the Web index, so it fundamentally cannot be local, but there are features that could be.)
languagemodel should be an OS service..
It reminds me of the "dialup warnings" common 2 decades ago on huge pages (often containing many images). Yes, bandwidth and storage has gotten cheaper, but the unwanted waste should still be called out. I'm not even anti-AI, having waited several hours recently to get some local models to experiment with, but that's because I wanted to and made the decision to use that bandwidth.
https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#GenAILocalFoundati...
The prompt API can be tested here: https://chrome.dev/web-ai-demos/prompt-api-playground/
It would be really helpful if there was a way to download the model to a central location, so multiple users on a single system could easily share it.
Brave has always just worked for me and seems light on memory usage. Dunno why anyone would use chrome.
A lighter Brave.
The file might be 4GB but the transfer sure as heck wasn't, so what are we even talking about? How much data is actually transferred? Can someone just grab that weights.bin file and zip it up with max compression and report a more realistic number that we can do the math with, if the number is even worth doing the math for?
Works without Javascript, no CAPTCHA, no DDoS, no geoblocking, etc.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260504192142if_/https://www.th...
So if you see this as just a new feature that provides some on-device AI, it's a bit, so what? A new feature? The last GT7 or Flight Sim patch was bigger than this, what's the big deal, etc.
However, that's not really what's going on. It theory Chrome gives you a local LLM that can provide local AI powered features. In practice, everything gets sent to the cloud anyway so the local LLM seems mostly to exist as a disguise for that, which is shady AF.
As others have pointed out, the solution is https://www.firefox.com/. And whilst it's been trendy on HN for several years to slag off Firefox and Mozilla, I went back to Firefox as my daily driver several years ago, and Chrome's high-handed enforcement of Manifest V3 extensions (meaning no full fat uBlock Origin) has only served to cement that decision.
It's mostly been great. The only downside is that some sites don't work properly on Firefox, and I'm 99.999% sure that's not Firefox's fault.
For example, Paypal's post-login verification step breaks so every time I want to buy something using Paypal I have to switch to Chrome. And, no, disabling uBlock Origin and other extensions on Paypal doesn't help - I've done this already. Seriously, Paypal, it's been months: will you please just fix signing in and paying on Firefox, please?
And many sites will assume you're a bot first and ask questions later if you hit them with anything other than Chrome or Safari... which is also extremely lame and scummy.
If you were to install Chrome fresh, what if it was a 4GB+ download from their website? I would at least pause. For reference, a regular offline installer is 140MB.
If Chrome had installed 4GB for some other tooling that most people don't need, would anyone care? My operating system installs with a million default packages that I don't need. Users install applications with optional features all the time. Applications install additional tooling so that they'll function all the time.
To the other point: of course Claude Desktop modifies the browser--that's how it works. Most apps install integrations with existing apps. Often apps install a whole collection of plugins, even for things the user doesn't use, so they're available if the user does start using the other apps.
The fact that this happens to be AI-related is a moot point. The environment concern is utter nonsense. They're not using everyone's browser to power AI for others as some kind of shared collective resource. 4GB is not a lot of data in the grand scheme of things (beyond general application bloat). I have more than 4GB worth of ads shoved in my face every month.
The legal argument is facile as well. When you install any application, its terms of service cover functional updates and additions. You don't have to explicitly consent to all of them.
Other than the size of it, I don't have any problem with anything this article is mentioning.
This is a huge nothingburger that only caught peoples' attention because of the irrelevant mention of AI.
Of course I would. It’s already the largest application on my computer, and I only keep it around for when a site doesn’t render right in Firefox.
This kind of size increase clearly pushes it over the line for me and it’s getting uninstalled.
Have you seen SSD prices recently?
The author's main points were all the other alarmist nonsense, though.
OH MY GOODNESS, this is the WORST headline.
If Google Chrome comes with an AI model, and you install Chrome of your own free will, you just gave consent.
The "climate costs" are happening whether or not the AI is there. Sure, maybe it makes the hardware work a bit harder, but like, come on. I'm still using my computer anyway. YOU are the one costing the climate, not Google. You're the one turning the "On" button on.
I don't even know why headlines like these are taken seriously.
God, I'm SICK of this AI slop style. After ingesting terabytes of pirated books you'd expect a little bit more variety in it's writing.
>After ingesting terabytes of pirated books you'd expect a little bit more variety in it's writing.
I think it's the result of post-training. The original base model most likely had a less slopy style. This style is what AI companies think is a good style (they specifically train for it).
If you're okay with 4GB being added, where would you draw a line? What if it downloaded a 40GB file? 400GB?
Lately Firefox has been getting better, but I still prefer Chrome for almost all my needs, so I stick to it. This barely even makes a difference to me. If it was 400GB however it would make a difference to me, and I would make more of an effort to switch to something else.
cloud: FUCK YOU GOOGLE
These days, I just navigate away from anything that demands I use Chrome "for best results." One of the sites for a local utility company does this, so instead I just call monthly and pay or manage my service by phone. I'm old enough to remember when that was the preferred way after mailing personal cheques went the way of the dodo, so it does not feel that inconvenient to me, but I can see where it might for other people. Still, nobody said the fight to regaining our agency online would be easy. Or convenient.
I hate how much companies don't care about efficiency or their customers. It's like windows 11 requiring like 2 more GB of RAM just to see your desktop, what an upgrade, yuck.
I think the only time I've ever had to use Chrome instead of Firefox was because of some USB device thing that worked inside Chrome. Otherwise everything just works in Firefox.
I can recommend the following extensions:
- Youtube Enhancer
- DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials
- Cookie Auto Decline (a MUST for Europeans)
- Slop Evader
- No Gender (a MUST for Germans)
Its a totally different browsing experience than what most people have.
I recently watched my kiddo looking something up with Edge on her laptop. I had to interfere and install Firefox. It was ridicolous!!! The amount of spam on the screen. How people can cope with this is beyond me. Especially if the solution doesn't cost anything. Just Firefox + some free extensions.
edit: because people asked about the No Gender extension:
Germany didn't have “gendered” language, until it was introduced some years ago.
Imagine the sentence: The teachers explain to their pupiles that the managers work only for the shareholders.
in regular German, it would translate to:
Die Lehrer erklärten den Schülern, dass die Manager ausschliesslich für die Anteilhaber arbeiten.
In gendered German, it became:
Die Lehrer:innen erklärten den Schüler:innen, dass die Manager:innen ausschliesslich für die Anteilhaber:innen arbeiten.
For me, it ruins the reading experience.
Gosh most of the time when I read people complain about firefox, it gives me the impression they have not even used firefox.
Chrome doesn't do that. I literally can't use Firefox anywhere I don't have a power socket.
My laptop also becomes a toaster.
[1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/10/mozillas-ceo-doubles-down-o... [2] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/leadership/mozillas-next...
AI is being pushed so hard from the top down by every executive (who have been practically foaming at the mouth about AI for years now) it might as well be extruding from every port and seam on people's devices as if it were a buzzword/fomo diarrhea of some sort.
It's frustrating.
>
> If anything, the fact that I think the amount of space is acceptable for the amount of ram a modern laptop has exaggerates the point.
How does the memory usage of your browser tabs relate to the amount of disk space taken up by the downloaded models?
> That's the approach they take for most of their features.
And there’s a reason for that. Same one the EU forced companies to make consent to marketing and consumer data sharing opt-in and not opt-out: we have a bias.
> Which seems to be the motivation of having these local models embedded in the browser's available resources
Sooo… we are basically agreeing on the fact it could prove to be useful? In the long run, if and when they decide to pick a model that isn’t half brain dead (apparently it’s based on Gemma 3).
I am talking about space in general. Data size. The relation of data stored in one place vs another is the fact they both store *data*. The components to store data can be cheaper or more expensive based on how it's architected. The fact I still see 4GB as an acceptable cost in ram exaggerates the point because it shows that I'm okay with 4GB being consumed in a relatively expensive component used for data storage (meaning I'd obviously be okay with it being stored on hard disk).
> if and when they decide to pick a model that isn’t half brain dead (apparently it’s based on Gemma 3)
Gemma 3 is far from brain dead and can be used for a variety of different tasks, translation being one I've personally used it for.
Sites that autoplay a video, which follows you as you scroll are the worst.
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
>With the Prompt API, you can send natural language requests to Gemini Nano in the browser.
Also, the next version of Gemini Nano will be based directly on Gemma 4 (so not distilled, not Gemini at all except for the name)[2].
So no, it's not a frontier model. Those don't run on your phone or in your browser.
[1]: https://developer.android.com/blog/posts/ml-kit-s-prompt-api...
[2]: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/04/AI-Core-De...
Ask any Emacs evangelist.
Similarly with their separate summarisation etc features I was prompted whether I wanted a local model, online model (I think), or not at all. It did not download 4gb of data without consent.
We can keep complaining about details forever but it is like missing the forest completely.
Imagine the sentence: The teachers explain to their pupiles that the managers work only for the shareholders.
it was
Die Lehrer erklärten den Schülern, dass die Manager ausschliesslich für die Anteilhaber arbeiten.
and it became:
Die Lehrer:innen erklärten den Schüler:innen, dass die Manager:innen ausschliesslich für die Anteilhaber:innen arbeiten.
It’s insane.
> you would lose meaning
No meaning is lost that has not been there before.
> someone else's use of language awkward
Most would judge that it's not just awkward, but grating.
In German: Leser (masculine)
Possible forms of inclusive speech: Leser*innen, Leser:in, Leser_innen
This extension removes these possible forms of inclusive speech. Arguably they hurt the reading flow and the German language has the generic masculine. However, proponents of inclusive speech feel that the generic masculine isn't inclusive.
Personally I'm in favour of it, but I will concede that if it's done enough times throughout the text (as German has way more gendered nouns in common use than English) it does come with the downside of breaking the reading flow.
I'm far from an expert in such things, but I'd observed that the approach in English to gendered words (actor vs. actress) seemed to be, over time, to drift towards calling everyone an actor - as a neutral term, to avoid treating women differently, rather than a male term per se.
In German, from your explanation, it's gone the opposite way - aggressively maintaining the female option because of a dislike of broad adoption of the male version as a neutral default.
Also, distillation is how most of these smaller models are made from the biggest models. That process largely defines the frontier along most of the curve.
I'm not going to keep arguing with you. If you want to keep arguing, go to https://gemini.google.com/. Gemini knows what a frontier model is and it knows that Gemini Nano is fundamentally different from the other Gemini models. For one, it uses the Gemma architecture. And the next version of Gemini Nano is built directly on Gemma 4.
As for your original claim that I quoted, there are other "open American frontier-level models" by your definition. Like Gemma 4.
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioner...
or this:
https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text/overall/pareto
The lines in these charts is literally what the frontier is on a technical level. None of what I said has any ambiguous terminology. This is common language in the field. Neither is the fact that google cares a lot about this. I don't see why you still feel the need to argue about any of this.
Only living things can have more than one gender and in that case, not only does the article change, but so does the suffix. There is no "singress" in English, only "singer", but in German there's "der Sänger" or "die Sängerin". Calling a female singer "der Sänger" would be grammatically-speaking completely incorrect.
The only thing that changed fairly recently is that more and more people intentionally try to maintain gender ambiguity when they don't intent to specify a gender, in which case "the singer" becomes "die Sänger:in", or even "der:die Sänger:in" if you want to be even more pedantic.
> The only thing that changed fairly recently is that more and more people intentionally try to maintain gender ambiguity when they don't intent to specify a gender, in which case "the singer" becomes "die Sänger:in", or even "der:die Sänger:in" if you want to be even more pedantic.
Here is my point: in English, the move to gender neutrality of certain words (e.g. actor/actress) seems to have involved adopting the male version, and using it as neutral. (I don't know if some people are offended by this, but if they are, I've not come across it).
In contrast, in German, I impute that some people would be offended by using the male version of a word as a default neutral for all including women, so are deliberately maintaining the female version within the slightly awkward "Sänger:in" construct.
This is a strong, deliberate choice, in contrast to (what I see as) the more passive "eh, let's just use 'actor'" in English.
Zwei Punkte: erstens, nein, such times are never over. Only thing that changes is who is outraged and by what.
Zweitens, you're a demonstration of this right now by caring. To be clear, I'm not criticising you for this, you're allowed to care about stuff, but you're literally promoting an extension that rewrites someone else's word choice because you don't like it. Es ist dasselbe, und ist gründlich no different to how English Sprachbewahrer complain about the split infinitive in Star Trek's "to boldly go" or common use of the phrase "very unique" (unique means one-of-a-kind, how can you be "very" that?)
> The German language has no generic feminine so adding it to the extension would contradict its goal.
Die deutsche Sprache ist keine constructed language like Esperanto, whose rules come from a book, it's a natural language whose rules are discovered by observing those using it. As people change what they say and how they say it, so too does language change over time.
The German language is what those using it, do. On the basis of the political adverts I see around here, this includes the conservative CDU borrowing die englische Phrase „Made in Germany“: https://www.cdu.de/aktuelles/cdu-deutschlands/mainzer-erklae...
My calculus textbook (Königsberger, 2004) in university used alternating generic masculine and feminine in its exercises, which I found a delightful use of language.
Lehrer being explicitly male and Lehrer:innen being explicitly inclusive?
I appreciate that this seems to be an emotional topic, but if people choose to use language in a new way, would it not be best to not withhold that information from you as a reader? Someone else wrote that it's like using an ad-blocker, but if I were to read an article, I would want to read it in the exact form someone wrote it, no? It's a bit like Americans auto-replacing "fucking" with "f***g" in their browsers to avoid an annoyance, but they lose information in the process.
We Germans know that the generic masculine includes both genders by default. It’s how we use the language.
(exception: Chinese didn't really bother with gendered pronouns until about the nineteenth century, due to the need to translate European languages, so some had to be introduced)
So since my youth, multiple proposal have been put forward, among which the gender-star. Lehrer -> Lehrer*innen, Lehrer:innen.
It was never taken seriously, until we got a left wing government (2022 or so) and since then its getting more and more used. Especially in progressive media. Some even speak it. With a short break that represents the star or :. Sounds pretty stupid, but people do it.
In my mind, its the ultimate form of virtue signalling :-)
but hey. to each their own. I just prefer to ignore it if possible
On GrapheneOS they recommend Vanadium - a more secure Chromium fork - and specifically recommend against Firefox, but that's on mobile.
> The sandbox has been gradually improving on the desktop but it isn't happening for their Android browser yet.
Context is definitely interesting to have with your statement (From https://grapheneos.org/usage).
FF is largely funded by google money? Chrome _is_ google.
FF invests in AI features? Google invests even more in AI features and shoves them to you without consent (which ff asked me for after upgrades).
Maybe FF is not perfect or great or whatever by one's point of view, but it _is better_ than chrome, at least regarding these arguments.
It's the sneaky ways that Firefox are Google that bother me. Above you said that they recently added a switch to disable AI - only after backlash (though I have to admit that the original blog post said there should be an option to disable it). I also dislike that they are focusing on AI and advertising instead of improving their browser, but that's their decision.
If you can, run it, report issues and help them develop it.
Just uBlock Origin pre-installed
Yes, I hate that it's also Chromium, but no, there aren't real alternatives.
There's also WebKit-based FOSS browsers not based on Chromium nor Gecko. Upstream it's maintained by Apple but the open source webkit browsers should not have any questionable features by default.
I'll give myself as an example, between writing that first comment and replying to you, I downloaded and built ladybird on MacOS - it took 25 minutes, most of which was me fixing build dependencies - and here I am replying to you from an alternative browser. Text navigation is a little weird and text boxes are weird, but so far it works.
Of course, if building in the background is more effort than you're willing/able to expend, then continue using Chrome or Firefox until others finish the alternative, and then decide if the time required to download, install and get used to a packaged browser is also going to be a hindrance to you paying your bills.
Now we can argue whether or not it's an appropriate amount of disk space or bandwidth to use, but that's just a reasonable practical discussion to have. Framing it around consent is unnecessarily inflammatory and makes it harder to have a discussion, not easier.
Honestly, for most features you could justifiably say its fine. I mean honestly, how large is an English dictionary? 100 KiB? That is a far cry from 4 GiB. Just taking up 4 GiB of disk space without even asking is indeed a shit move no matter how you shake it. If Microsoft Word updated and suddenly took up 4 GiB more for something like a dictionary, it might not cause as much uproar as if it were something that many people are tired of hearing about and not interested in, but I'm not sure you would find a single soul who would find that acceptable, more just tolerated, probably partly because a lot of people simply wouldn't know better.
You just described 95% of the parts of all software, especially in this era. And think of the Web - how many gigabytes of terrible adtech and tracking code does the average user download in a month of web browsing without an adblocker? Remember, each one probably packages in a couple hundred NPM dependencies into its bundle.
I don't have even a single use for Siri on my Mac. It's useless AND redundant with the Siri that I have to have on my phone, yet Apple downloaded and installed "Siri" on there. If I install GarageBand which is the only first-party way to do basic audio manipulation, Apple installs at least 4GB of audio samples on my Mac.
None of this is to say "I approve of this exact thing Google is doing" - just that I agree with GP that this is exactly the same as what every big company (and many small ones) do every day.
The only "consent" we ever get is basically the all-or-nothing EULA we have to click Agree to in order to log in for the first time - the relevant terms are "Want computer? Accept that we will be shipping you all kinds of code constantly, for 'reasons.'"
Equating a 4GB file installed without explicit consent to the installation of a language dictionary is comical. That's like saying an unwanted political mailer left in your mailbox is the equivalent of a pallette of hammers left in your driveway.
If tomorrow Google was to include a Blockchain miner in Google chrome, you'd still say you consented to it by using their software ?
Because I'm pretty sure that this LLM is also going to be used by Google to gather data on the user and feeding it to Google, hence just like the Blockchain miner using our computer ressources (space & performance) to feed Google yearly benefits.
You know, I never thought about it like that, but it is true. The bloat and spyware is a core part of the OS now.
It's just more efficient that way!
You just described at least 90% of the software packages on your machine, if not 100%. Almost all software contains modules that go unused by certain users.
Software is very bloated these days and I don’t think most projects allow users to pick and choose what part of the apps are installed or not.
MSWord takes up 2.6GB, btw.
You mean like Siri? It does the exact same thing and no one asked for it, either. That shit barely works too.
If it contains less than 50,000 words, perhaps, but most standard print dictionaries contain ~500,000 entries. The size of /usr/share/dict/words on my system is 954 KiB and the small version of the cracklib dictionary is 481 KiB.
Shipping an AI model with a browser is starting to look like sticking cameras on ALL glasses, not just smart glasses, regardless of whether anyone wants that. Saying this is fine and not unusual is clearly motivated reasoning and just normalizes the surveillance state. It's very obvious the way this ends. Browser-based models will eventually be using your computer at the edge to save corporate money in the cloud while they do ever more expensive and invasive stuff to profile you.
The alternative is sending the data to Google.
For me the most significant problem is the lack of consent. I assume it's just not how you want to frame the problem. Ignoring the problematic parts or behavior of some sort of behavior is a common problem in modern software, and it's actually what the article is complaining about.
It's the fact that they were forcing it into MY computer, using MY bandwidth for THEIR profit goals. The lack of consent was the final nail in the coffin for me, no computer in my house uses Windows now, and it will at best be a long time before that changes.
I got rid of Chrome ages ago as well. Chrome's only redeeming feature is its user base. It's slower, uses more system resources, ugly as a browser, and now its an AI rapist too.
Chrome is not entitled to my disk space just because I installed it and Microsoft has been excoriated for the exact same behaviour with AI.
When you install any program it becomes entitled to your disk space, by the definition of installation. If you don’t like the program, you can just uninstall it and it’ll no longer take up your disk space.
You're right in the sense that practicality and consent are orthogonal issues. There are probably stronger arguments to complain about a feature than the disk use.
I'm not even sure that is actually true for most people. If you mainly work in the browser, which many do, then you can change the OS under it without impacting the user too much but change the browser and there will need to be much more to adapt/relearn.
So where is the line we draw where bait-and-switch goes from being acceptable to unacceptable?
MA Chapter 93A for example clearly says that businesses are prohibited from "unfair or deceptive practices" including misrepresentation or concealing defects. Where do you think the line should be?
If you market a product as a Browser and it's codebase is 10% browser related and 90% some other program... Should Google have to correctly represent that product?
Related; If you didn't like when Apple forced you to use Siri on your phone, why did you purchase a Mac? Did you not expect them to continue disrespecting your sovereignty after you let them get away with it the first couple dozen times?
What isn't part of the software? Can they just install as much garbage they want to, as long as they claim it is part of the "browser"?
Also, scale absolutely matters. If I pull up in front of your house and say "hey, mind if I park here?" and you say yes, then I park, walk away, and 10 minutes later park a fleet of 18 wheelers in front of your house, you're going to feel like I wasn't...entirely forthcoming about what I intended.
If Chrome shipped a crypto miner and used the resulting coins generated on my device to let me automatically bypass paywalls with micropayments that would be way better than if they shipped the same and just took the coins.
A browser is for browsing. Going to websites and using them, in the way we've been used to for decades.
To suddenly use it to install an AI model on your machine, is way beyond the expected scope. There's nothing "auto update" about this, nor is it required functionality.
If anything is dangerous, it's you framing this as if you get to control how the conversation is had.
That said, I do want to amplify agency. I don't immediately know what to expect for disarming this. If a website starts hitting the API heavily and my machine's fans are spinning up, where am I at, and what do I expect? It feels like the web is close already, with a pretty sophisticated permissions model, where we go to look for things. I'm interested in an evolved permissions model for the web, where even when permissions are on by default, it's the same flow to turn them off. I think that would remove a lot of the grounds for "I don't want this" that seems so persistently abundant these days.
Even it feels like the risk is so low/non-existent, if the user's demanding less agency from the their user agent, in principle I guess we ought give them the less that they asked for. Usually. But that always has some kind of practical limit too. CSS made some people mad! It's ok for this not to be the software for you, for you to go need to go somewhere else.
I believe that relatively inert capabilities like this, where mostly it's taking up some storage space and joules, is generally not really altering the contract, and is fine.
I agree. I want just a browser. No non-browser-related features, such as JavaScript, CSS, WebRTC, WebGPU, Wasm, etc. Nope, just browsing.
Edit: /s, obviously
You need to find another browser, if your desire is only browser core features. You have that freedom!! You can do it!
On the other hand: I don't think anyone caters to that position, because it's a bad/nonsense position, that users don't want. There are some browsers that come closer to this, but this idea of "browser core features" is, on the face of it, to me, reduction deeply into the absurd.
Furthermore, users aren’t going to want to have to wait for an extra thing to download before their web apps can use AI.
That’s the thing… Without context of why, users probably wouldn’t want a 4 GB download. But they do want their web apps to work properly. When there’s a specific use case they’re interested in, they will want to have it, and they won’t want to wait.
Though I kinda agree that framing it as "consent" feels a bit off even if I myself would say no if only Chrome had the courtesy to ask. What icks me more is a 4GB[1] blob that has no relevance to the primary business of being a web browser; this is basically the IE anti-trust issue all over again. And it's an experimental feature! Under saner policies this thing would be a plugin from "Google Chrome Labs".
[1] I found weights.bin in Ubuntu 22.04 Chrome v147.0.7727.137 but it's "only" 2.7GB. Still, my ick stands.
we have every right to be upset at Google's audacity to suddenly gobble up 4 fucking GB
Also from the same webiste, Claude installing spyware: https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/anthropic-spyware/
but discussion about that seems to have been suppressed on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Anthropic+spyware
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
When Chrome 148 releases tomorrow, this will be the default behaviour on desktop.
To download, it should check for 22 GiB free disk space on the volume where your Chrome data dir is, and at least double the model size of free space in your tmp dir.
As much as I’m against unexpected 4GB bloat for an AI model, I’d much prefer it to install one copy, system-wide. 4GB per Windows or Linux lab machine, rather than a 4TB minimum load on our NFS server and 4GB downloads per user, per machine on our Windows labs.
Google should know better. Chrome has local administrator permissions anyway (w/ its updater) so they should have installed a single copy for the entire machine.
It's not cool to give a damn about the people who keep mundane stuff like desktop infrastructure, file servers, etc, working, I guess. The wanton disregard to even talk to a single in-the-trenches corporate sysadmin seems like malice.
2018? An estimate from 8 years ago is going to be off by a factor of 10 or so.
Not sure you'd get far with the legal arguments unless you're actually a lawyer. Too easy to misunderstand the jargon (i.e. the same reason why it's dangerous to use an LLM as your lawyer).
(As an aside, the whole thing reads to me like the style LLMs use; not saying for sure it was, just giving me those vibes).
Quitting chrome these days is the easiest thing to do. The writing is on the way. You don't control the browser on your network, google does. ANd for better or worse, google's priority is AI at this time.
Sysadmins should take notice.
If the network is ~65% chrome and thus deemed painful, take the gradual approach. Do not push chrome on new devices or users. Watch that problem slowly go away.
Curious to know, what viable alternatives did you discover?
Its miles ahead of something like Osmand , which i really, really, tried to like for a year, but its a UX disaster (i could never ever figure it out)
Several countries. Works offline. Saves the journey taken
Not the best at finding places sometimes. Food places and ratings still has to be google or trip avisor, but those are very relative too. Wherever you go the key e some preparation anyway
For direction I think it is rock solid
Delete Chrome's silent 4 GB AI model file and AI
In Chrome, go to: chrome://flags
Search for and Disable these:
Enables optimization guide on device
Prompt API for Gemini Nano
AI Mode
Click the Settings (gear icon).
Go to AI Innovations and uncheck Enable AI assistance.
sudo rm -rf ~/.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo rm -rf ~/.config/googlechrome/Default/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo touch ~/.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo chmod 400 ~/.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo touch ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo chmod 400 ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo chown root:root ~/.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
sudo chown root:root ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
ls -l ~/.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
ls -l ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/OptGuideOnDeviceModelhttps://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/1t536x6/psa_chrome_...
"On-device AI" can be disabled. At least, it is in Chrome on Linux Desktop.
Gemma 4 E4B is a much better model, but it's too large to simply download and run everywhere.
IMHO, this is jumping the gun. Google's going through a lot of effort to release a model that will give everyone a very poor first impression of what on-device models are capable of, souring it for everyone for a long time afterwards. It would be better to wait until a smaller, better model ships before doing this.
It's good to have something to work with if these Web APIs are going to be part of a standard. I suppose this means that ALL the browser vendors are likely to implement something
Mozilla has taken a strong stand against the prompt api.
I wonder what that will do for the competition between hosted genai and local models...
You're not even the customer when it comes to Google.
Or at least justify the hundreds of billions they are burning
They simply read your mails, how would you expect there to be anything resembling decency in a company like that? It is the ad business.
Bad thing is that people still use gmail.
The idea that the model is local is just Privacy Washing. What's the chance they aren't capturing your prompts somehow? For "Telemetry" so they can triage bugs of course!
- software company decides to release a new version and auto installs it for everyone who has the old version (like Google Chrome)
- software company decides to release a new version. The Debian packaage maintainer checks if the update is fine, is compatible with Debian policies, then includes it in the packages repositories.
In the first, there are no checks. In the second, there are.
Environmental analysis for operations? Not a fan of thinking in such terms.
> For users on capped mobile data plans, particularly in regions where smartphone-as-only-internet is dominant (much of Africa, much of South and Southeast Asia, most of Latin America), 4 GB of unrequested download is on the order of a month's data allowance, vapourised by Chrome on the user's behalf. Google has not, to my knowledge, published any analysis of the welfare impact of this on the populations whose internet access is metered.
THIS is a valid concern. Otherwise I'm not buying into "ask for consent because of dependency X". Users don't like questions/consents.
However OS (at least windows) has an way to set network connection as a metered so software can make informed decisions. Also Android has "Data Saver" function which should also be honored by software.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260505052217/https://www.thatp...
https://archive.ph/sM7O5 (missing images and styling, but the content all seems to be there)
# From one's $HOME dir:
rm -fr ./.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
mkdir -p ./.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
touch ./.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel/weights.bin
chmod 0400 ./.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel/weights.bin
chmod 0500 ./.config/google-chrome/OptGuideOnDeviceModel
This has, so far, kept Chrome from (re)installing that file on my system.
Hypothetically the parts involving weights.bin aren't needed so long as the containing directory is not writable.
Done! Edit: nevermind - i've deleted it. The community guidelines request/require that responses actually attempt to answer the question (how to block all AI usage), which this response does not address.
Question from last November, even referring to macOS, by @paulirish: https://superuser.com/q/1930445/can-i-delete-the-chromes-opt...
With policy setting, debug url, docs in the answers.
One search away.
The current state can be viewed at the internal debug URL chrome://on-device-internals/
Since January there's a user facing toggle in Settings > System > On-device AI in Chrome Canary https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/artificial-intelligenc..., described in Chrome Help Center at https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/16961953https://sup...
Or Firefox of course.
https://adsm.dev/posts/prompt-api/#which-browsers-support-th...
All of your history, trivially searchable. Imagine the waste heat generated by the browser bar conducting thousands of non-consensual searches every time you type.
You make a good case for much stronger laws and regulations on what such consent can legally allow.
> Framing it around consent is unnecessarily inflammatory and makes it harder to have a discussion, not easier.
Spoken like a Google shareholder. It’s wild to see this level of gaslighting being presented as some sort of reasonable position.
For each, indicate whether it's closest to: 4MB, 4GB, or 400GB:
1. One MP3 song.
2. A 2-hour movie streamed from Netflix at 4K
3. The capacity of this computer's SSD.
4. The free space on the SSD.
5. The whole of English Wikipedia not including images
6. a AAA game from 2010 with all its supporting files and DLC
7. a AAA game from 2026 with all its supporting files and DLC
8. The total of all software updates you installed last month
It is consent - and its a pattern ubiquitous in tech.
Idk a random model being part of the software is not a given as much as things are trying to be pushed.
Framing this as needing "consent" is deeply misguided. It's as silly as claiming that Google stole your credit card info without your consent. It's just part of the software. You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it.
Now we can argue whether or not it's an appropriate amount of physical abuse to use, but that's just a reasonable practical discussion to have. Framing it around consent is unnecessarily inflammatory and makes it harder to have a discussion, not easier.
This is just today
"Tech giants Microsoft, Google and xAI say they will allow the United States federal government access to their new artificial intelligence models for national security testing." https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/5/5/microsoft-google-...
i'd rather have a popup asking me if i want to. I don't see firefox nagging me with GBs of data for local translations (arguably the only good use for everybody right now)
When I download a web browser, it is reasonable to assume a piece of software that allows me to view web pages. Not an AI model.
The correct way to handle this, is for the vendor to announce the feature, the size and capacity required, and offer an opt-in, and not an opt-out.
This is beyond dispute.
My top-level comment has stayed the #1 comment on this post since I wrote it, and currently has over 300 upvotes. In fact, it is probably my most upvoted comment of all time, which is quite the surprise to me!
So it is extremely clear this is not "beyond dispute". A valid dispute can exist even if you're personally not happy about it.
Since when is an AI part of the browser?
On top it’s another abuse of their market domination. What if users prefer other models?
I'm not a fan of Google's actions here, but I do think it's possible that at some future time we'll say, "but a local AI model is a standard function of a web browser."
I have a 2GB mobile data plan. If I was using Chrome, then some site triggers the Prompt API, that will cause Chrome to not only wipe out my data plan, but need 2 of my data plans. I don't find this reasonable.
This is exactly a consent problem, because I'm not denying it might be a useful feature, but it should be at the user's own informed choice. The fact that Chrome developers don't appear to see this might be due to them living in a bubble where they've never had to think about the costs.
Apt install tells what it's gonna do. That's the standard to measure against.
Corporations have become entitled. Like the op i am sick of it.
Were the terms something like
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/refs/h...
"11.1 The Software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the Services."
https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/consent/
"Where should the consent request go?
Consent information must be easily identifiable by the user. It should be presented separately from any terms and conditions."
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
"You cannot rely on silence, inactivity, pre-ticked boxes, opt-out boxes, default settings or a blanket acceptance of your terms and conditions."
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/e...
"The element free implies real choice and control for data subjects. As a general rule, the GDPR prescribes that if the data subject has no real choice, feels compelled to consent or will endure negative consequences if they do not consent, then consent will not be valid.13 If consent is bundled up as a non-negotiable part of terms and conditions it is presumed not to have been freely given."
https://www.dpo-consulting.com/blog/gdpr-data-consent
"GDPR Article 7 further tightens consent. It requires clear requests (separate from general terms), a right to withdraw at any time, and documentation to demonstrate that consent was validly obtained. In short, you must prove that a person knowingly opted in. Records of data consent (who, when, how) are mandatory so that you can show regulators you followed GDPR consent requirements."
"You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding a banana and the entire jungle." - Joe Armstrong
You installed a banana with autoupdates enabled by default. Therefore you consented to installing a gorilla and an entire jungle
Anyway, joking aside, what's missing from this blog post is discussion of potential remedies for the alleged violations
It may be acceptable to Google to violate GDPR, etc. if the remedies enforced are merely a "cost of doing business" and not a threat to business success
Now to answer your question on the remedies. I didn't put them in this article because I covered them in another article that went viral a week or so earlier (the first reference in the Google article). The Google article was already a long read, I didn't want to repeat information I had already posted elsewhere.
As for my actions - well I will take the same actions I took against Anthropic.
I am currently preparing two legal complaints:
The first is under the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive here in the EU and will be sent to the IDPC (Information and Data Protection Commissioner) who will then initiate a Cross Border investigation with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (Google is "established" in Ireland for the purpose of GDPR) for the GDPR aspects and conduct their own investigation on the ePrivacy violations.
The second will be a criminal complaint against Google under Chapter 9 of the Maltese Criminal Code for alteration of the configuration of my device (Google remotely flipped a profile flag to enable the download which I witnessed in real time and have logs for) and for unauthorised access and use of my computer (to download and redownload the model) under computer misuse and access statutes (think CFAA in the US and how it was used against Aaron Swartz if you are looking for a way to file a criminal complaint against Google for this - the arguments used against Swartz are just as applicable to Google here).
So again, thanks for the post, it was nice to read someone actually understanding (unlike Reddit where it seems they do anything but read what they are talking about despite being called Reddit).
I also want to take this opportunity to thank everyone else in this thread for their time and comments and to YC for hosting the discussion.
Also my apologies for the 503's some people got yesterday (and thanks for posting mirrors) my blog runs on my home server and I had the rate limit set too low (I increased it once I saw the messages on here and it seemed to have fixed it).
Now that said - wait until you see what I am publishing next week (the project I was working on when I discovered this), it makes this look like child's play...
I am a privacy activist and I strongly object to corporations reaching in to my device, changing the configuration and installing things I never asked for without telling me or requesting my permission. If that makes me anti-ai, then it is a hat I will wear with pride, thanks.
If you don't like that the law protects my position as opposed to your's, perhaps you could lobby to have the law changed, just as I have done for the last 20 years to make these laws stronger?
I'm an anti corporate malfeasance activist.
Hacker News and it's underemployed and underpaid user base gets these two confused all the time. I assure you, your tolerance for language models, or your willingness to use them, will have _zero_ impacts on your pay scale in the coming decade.
Finally you should be aware that Google markets this addition as an "anti fraud" and "anti spam" feature. They should have to justify that, I shouldn't have to justify my expectations as a consumer.
A browser should render web pages not bring its own AI
If yes, it's an interesting API to call when a AI crawler hit your website.
Oh, the horror!!!
Wait, let me pay my HVAC guy $500 he deserved because he came all the way from his home to replace a fuse
Summarizer.create()
I think this is a distinct model from the Prompt API, since the other shipped AI APIs use fine tuned models.
Or this summary on its status:
> Mozilla: Opposed
> WebKit: Opposed
> Microsoft: Several concerns
> W3C TAG: Several concerns
> Developers: Mostly negative
From https://mastodon.social/@jaffathecake/116527007495775507
They're going to get blasted with cellular data charges when they fire up their computer in the field.
This is infuriating behavior.
Silicon Valley must wake up and understand the entire world does not live like them.
That said, you might be surprised to learn that some of the models from 3b-9b could probably replace 80% of the things nonvibe coders use chatgpt for.
Its a good idea to run small models locally if your computer can host them for privacy and cash saving reasons. But how can you trust Google to autoinstall one on your machine in 2026? I just couldn't do it.
I find it works fine for simple classification, translation, interpretation of images & audio. It can write longer prose, but it's pretty bad.
It can also write text in the format of a JSON schema or regexp for anything you might want to do with structured data.
but to answer your question: one of the services that uses a small model: PermissionsAIv4
""" Use the Permission Predictions Service and the AIv4 model to surface permission notification requests using a quieter UI when the likelihood of the user granting the permission is predicted to be low. Requires `Make Searches and Browsing Better` to be enabled. – Mac, Windows, Linux, ChromeOS, Android """
Not happy about that as I would like to see more local models but that's the current state of things.
https://sendcheckit.com/blog/ai-powered-subject-line-alterna...
Precedence for shipping models alongside consumer software.
Potentially without consent if it truly is a silent install.
One option I'm leaving as default is "Use LiteRT-LM runtime for on-device model service inference." Any comment on that?
"optimization-guide-on-device-model"
- Enables optimization guide on device
"prompt-api-for-gemini-nano"
- Prompt API for Gemini Nano
- Prompt API for Gemini Nano with Multimodal Input
and deleted weights.bin and the 2025.x folder in "OptGuideOnDeviceModel"
Will report if Chrome 148 downloads the model again.
That other flag is for using a different open-source inference engine to the (from what I can tell) closed-source one that's used by default.
#omnibox-ml-url-scoring-model
#omnibox-on-device-tail-suggestions
#optimization-guide-on-device-model
#text-safety-classifier
#prompt-api-for-gemini-nano
#writer-api-for-gemini-nano
#rewriter-api-for-gemini-nano
#proofreader-api-for-gemini-nano
#summarizer-api-for-gemini-nano
#on-device-model-litert-lm-backend
Then around gemini but not caught by the search for models: #skills (maybe? I think this is implied by "gemini in chrome"?)
edit: I don't see a carte blanch AI disabling option. As much as I dislike Mozilla's growing obsession with AI, at least they give me a top level option to disable all AI stuff. I only keep Chrome around for occasional testing reasons.
Because my Chrome stable has been updated to v148 now, and I don't see any AI models in my user profile folder. My profile size is only 328 MB, with the Code Cache subfolder occupying the most space (135 MB).
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/get-started#user-activa...
Just don't keep free space around :-D
Weirdly though, chromium won't be able to actually use the model even though it can download it, because the inference engine is a closed-source blob.
https://adsm.dev/posts/prompt-api/#which-browsers-support-th...
The tactic used to work even as prevention to common RPC exploits (viruses/worms) on windows as well (in the early 2000s).
I have gigabit internet (125 MB/s). This would imply when I'm downloading something I'm using 18 to 45 kW of electricity. Completely bonkers.
Additionally, the cited number also conflates wired internet (low power consumption) with mobile internet (higher), even though this model is only being downloaded to Chrome Desktop AFAICT.
EDIT: got the maths very wrong with some other estimates, deleted them.
There’s nothing stopping Google Chrome from doing something similar except, I suspect, Google knows or feels it will result in many fewer installs of its bloatware.
No, this is not true. The large requirement comes after a user wants to use the feature, not as a part of the normal upgrade. If the user never engages with the feature, it's not downloaded.
It's a bizarre way of living your life.
So no, I don't think it's a weird trend at all that people start describing software as "silently" doing things when trust in automatic updates of software (a thing that software silently does) has deservedly gone down the drain in the last few years.
I wanted a browser, not an LLM.
Related... to the functionality of feeding the same profit and loss account, right?
A 4 GiB model has nothing to do with the functionality of a web browser. It is something forced on users without their consent.
Of course that's what we get for giving the benefit of doubt to the company that insisted on learning the wrong things from the Google Buzz fiasco.
Problem is, nor do half its T&Cs. What we thought was a web browser turns out to be a Google content delivery vehicle - and controlled by Google, not the target users.
This does not happen. The model is not downloaded unless the user intentionally uses the feature that requires it. Then it's downloaded at that point.
Not everyone has access to the same infrastructure you have.
now I'm working on upgrading my computer lol
An xBox game can be 50+ gigs. Millions of gamers. Fire up the presses!
I'm not at all saying nothing matters so we shouldn't care. I just disagree about the utility of calling out specific things out of proportion to their place in the climate crisis. Tackle AI, yes, and fast fashion and cars, and ... that one change to Chrome? I guess if that's where you want to put your energy, Sisyphus.
So make your own judgement, but this seem pretty significant to me.
[1]: https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/global-chrome-user-base/ [2]: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-str... [3]: https://www.anthesisgroup.com/insights/what-exactly-is-1-ton...
29 grams for something that takes most folks less than 20 seconds to download? How many watts (neglecting the machinery was going to be running regardless of whether you are transferring something!) do you think it takes to transfer data?
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
Coal, the absolute worst of all, represents 18 grams over 60 full seconds to produce 1000 watts of power.
About equal to a major iOS update at 8 GB x 1.5B.
Netflix and YouTube together are perhaps around 200EB/month.
2.5 million downloads of 4 GB are 10 PB of traffic.
I think there are be a lot more than 2.5 million Chrome users in the world.
For one, not everyone in this world lives on high bandwidth unmetered connections. In Germany, you got a lot of people still running on 16 MBit/s ADSL, that's half an hour worth of full load just for AI garbage. With the average 50 MBit/s, it's still 10 minutes. For those running on hotspots - be it their phone with often enough 10 GB or less on your average data plan or train hotspots that cut you off after 200MB - the situation is similarly dire.
The other thing is storage. I got a nominally 256GB MacBook Air. Of these 256 GB, easily 50GB are already gone for macOS itself, swap, Recovery and everything that macOS doesn't store as part of the immutable partition (such as, you guessed it, its own AI models). Taking up 2% of the disk space without consent is definitely Not Cool.
Sorry folks, your low bandwidth situation is not, in fact, a climate change emergency.
[1] Used since forever by the Tobacco & Pharmaceutical, Fossil Fuels & Climate, Food & Diet Industries.
is about 60 gramms of co2 per user?
So for a lot of people paying for more then 25-50Mb/s (pro person) makes only sense if it isn't too costly. Hence I rarely see people going for more then 250-500 Mb/s even iff 1Gb/s is available and they have money. And for non-gamers with little money, I mostly see them with ~50Mb/s (or paying for 50Mb/s but getting much less due to old wires :( ).
(Also IMHO The more important things compared to 1Gb/s is how much of the bought bandwidth is reliably available at all times _with good latency_...)
In 2026 4GB of data is not going to have any measurable effect on the climate.
There's a level of hypocrisy involved which is truly absurd. Literally no one reading this is going to curb their data usage. They'll just try to justify their outrage with farcical strawman arguments to be pedantic and then go binge watch some Netflix series without another thought.
Comparing a single person to the entire world to make the inconvenience to or violation of a single person seem small is deliberately and thoughtfully deceptive.
Why not 4TB in traffic and storage for chrome, then? In a world of petabytes of traffic, it's a feather. What's wrong with jailing somebody wrongly for 20 years in a world where millions are jailed, many wrongly, often for lifetimes? What's a lost finger on the job when there's a genocide going on?
When Firefox does it, it sparks outrage across the internet, with entire forums filled with people vowing to leave Firefox forever and switching to something like Waterfor or Ilp/Zorp/Floop instead.
As a result, searching for experiences other people had with Firefox makes it sound like hell on earth, while people have little more to say about Chrome other than "Google gonna Google, but it's fast at least".
It's how you get things like "Browser monocultures are an issue, so don't use Chrome (Blink), use Brave (Chromium (Blink)) instead!" said in earnest.
I'm defaulting to Firefox ever since I moved my desktop to CachyOS, but I need to either reacquaint myself with its add-on situation after a long arc of using "chrome alternatives", or migrate to something else niche. Vivaldi was what I was sold on before Arc caught my attention through its wonderful UX/UI.
Mullvad Browser
Tor Browser for those occasions
There are only three major browser rendering engines. One is Gecko, by Mozilla. One is Webkit, currently tended to by Apple. And one is Blink, which is Google/Microsoft. Of those, Blink is the most featureful. That's why.
It’s not a waste of bandwidth and disk space, it’s a feature!
Curious if Google plans to allow other browsers doing that too.
99.99% I do not need Chromium but when I do, it's worth the ~200MB of used space.
For as long as the funding for Firefox continues, it remains a viable option. And despite all their bad decisions of late, they still give users the ability to configure or disable user hostile components.
Their funding model is a risk, but I've been using Firefox and librewolf forever and I'd argue it's a much better option than chrome or edge, especially with a handful of plugins. A risk is still better than the actual realization of the risk.
Even if that were true, it's still a better option _today_.
you would think google is not stupid enough to mess with gcp account holders
With Librewolf I can get proper WebGL, full UBo -with the AI blocklist too to avoid all the slop- and Bypass Paywall Clean from Giflic or whatever was called. Yeah, eh, y local newspaper won't mainly get adverts' money but the rest of local company ads show up well even with UBo/BPC, so they get some money after all.
On RAM usage, Librewolf it's far lighter on the long term and it doesn't ping back as Firefox, and many times less than Chrom* based browsers where, I repeat, Chrome based browsers don't allow UBo any more even if installed from their Github repo enforcing some about:flags variables related to legacy extension support.
The web today without UBo it's unmanageable. Popus, more than the ones from 2003, malware disguised as ads even on mainstream, safe sites, and all of these running zillions of cookies and trackers converting your -otherwise perfectly usable- old amd64 Celeron machine with 2GB of RAM into some crawling Pentium III with 256MB of RAM. With LibreWolf and UBo I could even test Yandex Maps with Prypiat and the like and InstantStreetView too. No slowdowns, no OpenGL >= 3.3/Vulkan video card required, and no need to own a 8GB machine.
HN developers there without UBo if they depend on the web for documentation they are bit screwed if they use Chrom* based browsers, sorry. Half of the resources for their machines coudn't be used, you know for IDE's, compilers, virtual machines/containers and whatnot. And, yes, I know about ZRAM under GNU/Linux, and just imagine how many tasks would anyone accomplish with a ZRAM compressed chunk (~1/3 of the physical RAM), a light desktop environment as Lumina/LXQT and a non-Chrom* browser blocking all pests. Up to 3X more tasks in the same machine. No need to waste money on upgrades, and compilng cycles are cut down for the good.
Silicon Valley is not the world.
Why not? It's about 60 000 London - New York City flights by the way (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...). And what's the benefit again?
Are they against washing machines too? Or are they just grandfathered in?
The oceans are boiling [0], marine life is dying [1]. Land close to the water will be land under water soon [2]. The ice caps are melting and setting free all sorts of diseases. [3]
Large parts of our planet on fire all the time now, here's one from Australia from this year [4], but I'm sure you've read about wildfires in Australia last year, California every year, Greece last year etc etc.
What you're proposing is nothing short of a death cult. It's either degrowth or we all die, sacrificed at the altar of capitalism.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/09/profound...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03013-5
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w
[3] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/could-microbes-l...
[4] https://phys.org/news/2026-01-australia-declares-state-disas...?
Unfortunately, that automation is unreliable. It doesn't work across operating systems - Windows laptops won't enable data-saver mode when connected to iPhones and macOS laptops won't when connected to Android phones, and neither will enable it when connected to, say, public transport wifi.
And even if the OS has the information, websites can't reliably use it either. Firefox and Safari both don't implement the NetworkInformation API [1].
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/NetworkInfo...
But I suppose hundreds of millions of people don’t mind based on the continued usage.
I miss programmers being proud of efficient code and size. I suspect moms of Chrome developers are embarassed to tell their friends.
Using that same mechanism to pull in several GBs worth of extra data without any warning is sketchy. If this happened and did not respect any settings for running on a metered network then it is even worse.
Other applications where this entitlement is better understood usually have a mechanism to purge the space it uses. e.g. Docker will consume whatever space you give it but you have commands to purge that space or to limited how much it will consume if it goes through a VM.
I really don't know why anyone would try to defend a tech company on what is a table-stakes expectation for being a good actor in the ecosystem. It's really lowing the bar for the supplier's sake instead of keeping the bar high for the consumer.
As a counter point, Call of Duty (the game) was mocked for requiring a good 200+GB of disk space and the conspiracy was they did that to push other games out of your storage. The market response there is easy: don't buy COD and don't install it.
I don't think it's quite the same for a browser that abuses network effects to stay useful. In which case Chrome is to Google what IE6 was to MS. A separate topic but we know that not all browsers are considered equal on the web.
The OSMand UX is clearly not made for casual use, but Comaps is basically the main user-friendly application. It is missing a couple of commonly-used features though, most notably traffic information, which of course Google bases on data collected from its users.
You sure about that? How explicit is the invocation? assuming it’s only run when the user does something (big assumption), does the user know clicking that summarize button is going to bog their system down and crank up their electricity use?
Button 1: "Stop the AI now to save X GB of RAM".
Button 2: "Erase all browser AI to save X GB of RAM and Y GB of disk"
This isn't asking for consent, it's simply informing the user about what oversized resources are optional and providing an honest way to save them.
The only alternative to that is formal consent.
To counter this, the idea that the BROWSER should be doing other things than BROWSE is insane to me.
It is very clear that you and I came of age in a very different environment with a very different mindset.
The moment somebody starts forcing additional packages, some which may even be larger in scope and code than the primary software, throw them in the woodchipper. That's dirty, disgusting behavior that removes user agency and exploits the trust between those developers / company and the user.
Absolutely not.
We've been down this road before and people hated it. Most, if not all of those companies, died.
There's libraries, still: big buildings with books on them, if you want to go browse static dead information that sits there! You can even check out books on your phone now; thanks Libby app! Your use case is already super well fulfilled! Has been for a long time! You can go do that!
It's absurd to me how conservative & constraining some people want the world to be. A reduction of possibility, that itself feels absurd, taken to even more absurd anti existence, anti possibility. There's been no platform on earth where it's so easy to make cool neat software and experiences for yourself & friends, where we can do so much. From a static website! That power is incredible. That power had been locked away forever and somehow it became very easy, yet still reasonably sandboxed, and is available to all, so easily: and that's nothing short of a miracle.
And as ever it's always the same! The same shit! "The story so far: after packaged software, the web was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Just go use a browser that works for you, and stop trying to ensnare the whole world in your very limited very constrained narrow view of expectations/desires. Don't expect the universe to reduce itself to your level! Especially because: the web will let you have the browser you want! There's other media-forms that are everywhere that are even more set, as per your desires! But man, to moralize & outrage against those who don't want the web to be but a book that's online? I don't sympathize at all, and I don't understand the basis where this comes from, and I so strongly feel there's been way way way too much of this frankly bad attitude; I think this is very broadly a popular anti-sentiment to whinge over, that is far too over-expressed. And it's so small, so limiting a world, that's so unclear & so unexplained. The world wide web doesn't need to fit in such a tiny box. This is human capability, that increasingly is the means open to all, for the Dream Machines to be made with, for intergalactic internets to connect people with. Sure! A lot of that hasn't gone great, we don't like what has been built!
But it's always seemed so clear and so obvious to me that this democratic access to platform, available on any device, that let's us do so much, is a fragile sacred thing. And that taking that away is to give up all hope of ever having systems that are good for us.
And before that point ask the user for consent.
It’s not that hard.
If you make a sudden big change, ask for consent.
Installation is not consent.
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#i...
Mozilla makes great points. Even if the API is model agnostic, which it ought to be designed as from the very beginning to even be considered a spec, models can act vastly different.
Mozilla didn't say this but the user should at least be presented an option to choose which model (at least once) starting from day one, even if your browser only has one option available. That's assuming a universe where Google plans on actually being concerned about standards adoption.
My guess is that maybe one in 1000 Chrome users will even notice it.
If the onboard LLM means no data sending and you get your own little service wholly subservient to you like a good little program. That's nice!
If the onboard LLM means better data filtering, possibly even exploration of the local system, to send information to Google while lessening their datacentre bills running LLM services. That seems a little underhanded to just bake into things without notification.
Pick your assumption, you get your outcome. What are your assumptions?
Knowing Google, the local model probably means even more data are sent to Google.
I asked Codex to look into it: https://i.imgur.com/lvOjR0x.png
I'm more inclined to think it's cost unloading. Move their cloud GPU costs to your desktop.
i certainly never activated it willfully. i use Chrome only as a fallback testing platform for web dev - a handful of times per month - yet both Chrome Stable and Chrome Unstable had installed this 4GB monstrosity in my home dir. 8GB of junk i'd never used. Both have since been uninstalled and replaced with Chromium.
If you google OptGuideOnDeviceModel, there’s already a lot of results of people asking what it is an how they can delete them. It’s not some kind of obscure niche feature.
I wonder when the first crypto miner-like malware appears that offloads model usage to the client computers.
Would you be able to compare this to other local models in it's class and a above that would fit consumer-grade hardware?
Now I can't see it anymore, but shouldn't the model be under chrome://on-device-internals/ -> model-status?
Maybe you can uninstall there too.
(I wanted to write something far snarkier and sarcastic but getting annoyed at google is like getting annoyed at a lawnmower/Oracle. That plus HN guidelines.)
I don't see that any one gigabyte of software I don't want is especially more
noteworthy than any other gigabyte of software I don't want.
In my experience a game worth playing never exceeded 1 (one) gig in size.
It is only incompetent creators that feel the need to bury their incompetence under gigabytes of irrelevance.
Stardew Valley, universally acclaimed and not graphically intensive at all, still takes up nearly 2 GB of space.
Your view on games is not grounded in the reality of modern gaming.
If you wanted to point to the year where they've been the best financed they've ever been and where they've had the most resources invested into browser development they ever have, that year would be 2026. Only to be exceeded by 2027 and then 2028, 2029 and beyond.
At a bare minimum, their endowment gives them probably a two to three year firewall in the event that their funding is cut off, which it hasn't been. I also thought the accusation was supposed to be the other way around, namely that we all knew they were going to get funded into perpetuity as controlled opposition.
MyMainWindow
That that feature (a) requires a local LLM, (b) will install a multi-GB download without telling the user, all happen without any explicit user consent.
The feature that didn't say it would cost you 4Gb, right?
Also, someone installing Steam is going to expect large downloads, hell, the platform tells you the size as you're about to start the download.
I don't think anyone expects a browser to suddenly download 4GB, let alone behind their backs!
11.42 petabytes per hour, and roughly 190,000 GB per minute and 100 exabytes delivered in 2025.
It was bad DSL but bad DSL is better than a 56k modem.
Nowadays DSL lines are anything from a few 100 meters to 1.5 - 2 kilometers. I don't know much about cable TV.
So why should anyone take it as a foregone conclusion that this is an instance where web devs should get what they want? In general, the browser should be acting in the best interests of the user and not automatically granting the wishes of every web site that wants to drain your battery.
Many of the paid-for competitors give users the ability to import unstructured recipe data these days from sites like instagram or at least text-only websites.
I can't afford to offer this as a feature since my website has no advertising and I just pay for it out of pocket, but it's an incredibly easy feature to add if you have the money to pay for tokens.
If I could use a local llm to do it though that runs in the person's own browser then I think it would definitely be valuable.
That said, I'm not sure the state of local llms provides a good enough experience yet (small models and slow) but that doesn't mean that in the future it might not be useful.
The propsosed apis do work for this purpose, albeit more slowly and lower quality
Pretty sure that ship sailed way back when Flash ruled the Internet, and it's still sailing more than ever today.
Browsers are just weird sandboxed VMs now. They have nothing to do with their original purpose. Don't be mad at me, I like shipping webapps that render documents server-side and use even JS incredibly sparingly. I'm just reporting what I see. The browser exists as a way to make developing completely proprietary apps with proprietary UIs for several platforms cheaper, and Chromium exists to help further that goal including, if necessary, being packaged up and shipped with those apps (Electron).
And having skimmed that page, it really doesn't answer most of the important questions. Are other browsers expected to ship Google's model, or put a different model behind the API that Google has documented as being specifically for Gemini Nano?
I allow free open access to the content, as blocking it behind an account signup doesn't sit right ethically—it should be open and free for everyone.
The issue there is that there's no way to easily secure the API from being hammered by bad actors. (Due to the often-controversial response many have to Scripture, apps like these draw special kinds of negative attention.) You can set rate limits, but people can still abuse those, just to try to burn your money. I can get by for free (or relatively cheap, fully paid out-of-pocket as none of this is monetized) on Vercel/Netlify/etc, but inference is expensive, and a prime target for those trying to cause trouble.
If in the future the web exposes local "foundation" models that web apps can assume are present, that would open up great possibilities like these for indie devs like myself. Being able to offer useful and compelling features without worrying about abuse would be nice. That's my point.
I’m not opposed to this. I don’t want Google, an advertising quasi monopoly, to be auto-installing its own AIs on everyone’s computers.
If it's to allow the web apps I use to work with more privacy, or to enable smaller/indie players (that can't easily afford to burn a bunch of API tokens for every user) to offer some basic AI-based features in their web apps, then I'm all for that.
This is the whole appeal of Apple's Foundation models on iOS too.
It's pretty terrible how much this kind of dynamic rules over tech. I'm not a 'capitalist', but god damn if competition isn't the most important thing to prevent total enshittification.
You'd be much better off arguing you wanted/consented to a browser, but you got 3 toolbars installed as well and a couple of extensions that report back every keystroke to their respective mothership.
When does code become software?
I have no pay scale to worry about, I own the software I build and don't rely on wages
Courts can't rule aprioi on civil issues. I would not expect the current status quo to count for anything.
> I own the software I build and don't rely on wages
Cool. So now everyone with $200 is your competition. It seems like a fools paradise to me.
This is anecdata, of course, take with a pinch of your preferred flavouring powder.
Windows even runs (semi-playably) 2020's shooters in this condition, though you need to kill any windows close to the tab limit that are full of recently opened tabs.
[Yes, I know, the horror]
> Chrome also came in at slightly lower memory consumption across all the benchmarks with total memory usage on average at 4.67GB to Firefox at 4.83GB.
Q: Does <company> understand consent?
A: No / Maybe Later
Q: Does <company> understand consent?
A: No / Maybe Later / we did it anyway, you'll need to search to find out how to turn it off, maybe ask the new AI model we've just back-door installed?It’s probably a business misplay to tell the other 99% of users about something they weren’t going to think about. But if by chance it goes awry and there’s outcry, just apologize and commit to do better.
The word you're looking for is "respect". They understand consent, the same as JBS* understands animal rights.
1. Yes
2. Ask me later
Well then at some point you need to stop growing.
We are probably on the brink of very bad consequences for a signification fraction of all humans (up to and including all of them, to some extent), which is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.
But what do you gain by incorrectly labeling that as "extinction"? Because you do definitely lose credibility for it, similarly to everybody using hyperbolic language such as "boiling the oceans" etc.
This is IME the default position on HN. Seemingly a complete showcase of the appropriate scope of web technology can be found at http://info.cern.ch.
Of course, it's not like any of this matters in the end.
That why ERPs added CRM and DMS functionalities, CRM added DMS and ERP features and DMS got messenger parts.
Of course those new functions can’t compete with the programs made for these functions in the first place and at the end of the day even the main functionality got worse.
Here is the additional point that Google enforces their own model without asking.
Usually programs with additional features give you an option page to select/deselect unwanted features
It's never a binary thing. "Is using energy good or bad?" is a stupid question which can only provide stupid answers. It has to be placed in the context of whether it's proportionate to benefit.
Things which burn a lot of energy for little benefit - and in the case of AI, often negative benefit - end up more towards the "bad".
I hadn't considered that societies rightfully impose standards on these things.
I consider it too early to judge the cost-benefit, but it's fair that others might have already evaluated that. I rescind my comment.
The emissions per kWh of energy used in providing internet downloads probably is similar to that per kWh of energy used for washing clothes.
The browser would then have a configuration option of which JS interpreter to use.
Citation very much needed. Technologists are not laypeople, and are almost certainly a vocal minority.
Local subreddits are filled with posts "calling out" usage of AI by local businesses or governments. Consensus is that persons who are found out to be be AI users should be fired or resign, businesses that use it should be boycotted / shamed, etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/newfoundland/comments/1t3x6q3/aialt...
https://www.reddit.com/r/PEI/comments/1s8rtyn/burger_love_ai...
---
Protests around a data center construction project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Q9ncOdnDg
This article is activism. The re-framing of software that you install intentionally being about breaking your 'consent' is ideological and incendiary. It implies that this is evil. It isn't.
I am still stunned that there are people who hate AI so much that they have a problem with the weights of an LLM being on their computer. To me, that sounds rather esoteric.
Can you imagine going to see a doctor, and in the middle of your appointment, the doctor drags you into the operating room to automatically update your body?
That's roughly how I feel about automatic updates. If you apply the concept of automatic updates to any industry outside of software, it would very easily be illegal. But strangely, this concept is considered legal when it comes to software.
Considering that most websites are optimized to just barely run on what the developers are targeting, letting them target the "state of the art" instead of what came installed on grandmas machine is been a huge negative for website efficiency and thus average user experience, not to mention global resource waste.
Yeah, that's where you lose me. The people who want to guarantee pixel-perfect rendering of web sites tend to be the same people who feel entitled to run their code on my machine as part of delivering their site, who prioritize their brand identity over my accessibility settings, who want to build their complex web app UI with no respect for the conventions of my chosen operating system. My browser should not be an ally to them; it should be taking my side in those conflicts.
Our users interact with a huge array of internal and external sites and web apps, virtually all of which will be tested on Chrome. Our LMS, collaboration tools, internal apps, SIEM tooling, HR systems, ERP, knowledge exchange partner portals - it's all been tested on, and works with, Chrome. And we're not in a position to force thousands of vendors to make sure their applications are standards compliant and work in less popular browsers (as much as we might like to). Not to mention the deluge of tickets we'd be dealing with when incompatibilities arise; banning Chrome would cripple us.
Google have backed us into a corner with this one by making a careless default choice that takes advantage of their market dominance and forces us to work around their decision.
Do you use a translation program to play browser games?
This is like saying that the part of driving where you wash dishes is why you, personally, need a dishwasher in your car. There is no feature that would fail the challenge if you can always claim that you need it to render a web page.
Local disk cache is a standard and reasonable feature expected by the vast majority of browser users. You are being obtuse.
Technological progress is also societal progress. If we embraced degrowth in the 1800's (there was a ton of pollution back then, and a Malthusian belief in disaster!) we might not see slavery being abolished or women being able to vote.
Not everyone wants this at the cost of others. It's not as simple as that / not a necessary consequence of our desire to find clever solutions to solve everyday inconveniences
Will people's lives really be better once they're drowning or choking on wildfire smoke? But hey, at least they had cheap junk!
It's possible to have better lives as well as societal progress without endless growth. Technological progress, too, doesn't have to mean burning our oceans. We just gotta actually think about the costs and consequences of our actions.
Not every technological development is inherently good. Sometimes the cost is not worth the result. I posit the cost of AI so far has been astronomical, higher than anything else in living memory. The results on the other hand have been rather middling.
This is my issue. A cost/benefit analysis, not a strict no to progress.
I mean this should (and is) be tackled at the source: 0/low emission energy generation and not consumer having to think about these decisions. Sustainable data centers using renewables etc. But not that the companies should associate/evaluate/consider bytes downloaded with environmental impact.
Consumers vote and advocate for what they want and don't want. There are many who say it's not an individual problem and should be dealt with broadly through regulation, then also oppose any attempts at regulation.
Until we're at that point though, the 'winners' in this market society (that wield unimaginable amounts of money = resources) such as Google could certainly think about consequences of their choices. And they usually do to some extent, I'm not saying they don't, just that electric supply and demand has two sides to it
Me, individually not doing something is gonna absolutely be drowned out by the scale of many other people not thinking of it or being incentivized against it.
This is a systemic issue. A systemic issue needs a systemic solution, not a blame shift to the individual.
We didn't get rid of lead in gas or asbestos in walls by telling people it was bad for them. We did so by banning it.
This is better than my current solution of an actual human with masters degreed intelligence performing all my cognitive tasks for free how? I mean, i'm the first to admit i'm extremely lazy and even i'm over here like "really??"
Right, because its totally something an LLM can do, right?
I'm sure that exists already, I've personally been waiting for some version of this to make it into browsers since like GPT 3.5. Every day on HN there is conversation about the tradeoffs of local vs. hosted models; the uses this API is intended for are perfectly within the capabilities of local models.
> And having skimmed that page, it really doesn't answer most of the important questions. Are other browsers expected to ship Google's model, or put a different model behind the API that Google has documented as being specifically for Gemini Nano?
Most of this is answered under the tag "Intent to Experiment" and the associated link. It's not a mandate that they're forcing on the web today, it's a public experiment intended in part to solicit feedback for a potential spec: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/6uBwi...
That does pretty much settle the question: if it's still just an experiment, Google should be asking for consent and web developers should not be assuming that this is the future of browsers, and nobody should be acting like this is a foregone conclusion.
But I would consider us users to be more like an asset on their balance sheet. Not something they would care about the opinion of.
More people "legitimately" using Tor makes it less likely to have its exit nodes outright blocked, as well, and assuming all traffic from them is malicious.
What's that number? How did you arrive at it and why?
My Chrome binaries are about 700MB on Mac and 500MB on Windows. Is this below or your line, or are they actually in trouble as soon as they're extracted?
My point is just that it seems there may be an arbitrary limit here that may not be the same for everyone (and 90% of users are nontechnical and thus couldn't give an answer whether 4GB is "worth it" for whatever the features are). Rather than add another whole ecosystem of "Cancel or Allow?" dialogs I'd rather operating systems did a better job of letting users put piggish applications on a strict space budget. Most of the apps on my phone are storing half a gig of "stuff" (called "Documents & Data" but not itemized, and even apps that have none of my 'data' such as browsers), which I can't force them to dump even in an extreme emergency. I can only delete the whole app.
I'm talking about Apple platforms as examples because I use those a lot and with their epic stinginess of SSD, anyone who doesn't pay $400 more than the base model will exhaust their storage within hours to months.
That's kind-of the point though right? An application that has been say <700 MB for decades, suddenly deciding it'll take a multiple of it's size without asking seems pretty unreasonable, I think it's pretty fair to say the expectations for Chrome were set already.
It'd be similarly unreasonable for a video game that once took 50 GB, to suddenly decide to take 400 GB.
Local storage and cache only have limits relative to available disk space in Chrome, IIRC, and can easily bloat to 100 GB without intervention. Personally I think that's a design flaw and they need customizable hard limits as well, but web browsers wasting space without asking is not a new or sudden development.
Just because there is a gradual spectrum between two states doesn't mean we can't draw distinctions. For example, just because we cannot define the exact, precise color when blue turns into green, it does not mean that blue and green are the same color for any normal person discussing an issue publicly in good faith.
When someone says "X and Y are on a spectrum, X is good and Y is bad", the point is to highlight the differences. Pointing out that the spectrum or continuum might not have a precise boundary has literally zero weight towards the validity of the ultimate conclusion a person is making here and really is just a complete derail done by people who have no substantive points to make.
And doesn't explain how normal non-hacker users (99% of the audience) are supposed to judge what "4GB" means to them.
I'm all for users getting to have more control over the usage of their finite resources, especially in this cursed age of soldered-down storage and RAM. But I disagree that some dialog that explains the feature and asks permission to use 4GB would improve anything. Honestly, it wouldn't even improve the PR with this crowd, it would just change the headline to "Chrome pushing users to download and install a 4GB model for so-called 'AI features'!"
Excuse me while I go count the hairs on my chin to see if they are >= MIN_BEARD_THRESHOLD.
yea your analogy doesn't even remotely make sense
This is also GOOGLE chrome, it serves their ends, in the past that was to render internet unimpeded (they saw a need then), needs change. I'd rather models serve most requests locally anyway, so long as it's not destroying my battery life.
Remember the whole chrome-RAM-gate saga? This shouldn't be shocking to anyone. PC's shipping 8gb ram, Google removing ad blocker extensions, these should be the real rally points.
So, 4GB is outrageous because it takes the very little space left after the existing bloat.
It also still makes Chrome install at least 5X larger.
The only reason I ever install Google temporarily is because gmail requires it to log in.
Giant apps on phones is quite frustrating because some of us have small storage.
It's the tech company's problem to convince me they are trying to do something useful to me. Come to think of it, it's their problem to convince me they still understand "useful to the customer" first.
Some people detest businesses slopping AI at them, but the evidence suggests consumers love using AI, which is presumably one of the primary uses of a micro LLM model that runs locally on your computer and is embedded in your browser.
People that post on "local subreddits" and the randos that protest datacenters are once again a vocal minority. Reddit in particular is probably the most echo-chambery destination on the web.
So yeah in general AI as a helpful tool people use online is popular. AI to replace jobs, build data centers and do unknown things on your device without consent, not so much. AI to potentially replace workers, not popular at all.
The model Google is shipping with Chrome runs on device. ChatGPT does not. The people that dont like data centers should love this feature. Same with people who are concerned about privacy.
If it's an echo chamber of AI hatred, then I think this makes the case that there are substantial numbers of people in that camp also?
AI as a product is bimodal in terms of the opinions people have of it.
i.e. when firefox does it, people wonder why they aren't using chrome. That's the entire point. The only thing that makes firefox attractive is if they don't do what google does, and they do almost everything google does.
Even if it results in extended campaigns of complaints and hostility from their most devoted users, and the loss of 95% of their installs. As far as I can tell the only thing they backed down on was destroying ublock, and that's because they recognized that it was an existential threat to firefox. The 3% market share that they have now would have become 0.3%, no matter what google did to prop them up.
I certainly don't recommend firefox any more. The amount of effort I have to go through to get the standard 2010 experience quality is absurd and I can't expect anyone else to think it's worth it. It's not worth it to dodge any of this bad behavior anymore, it's industry standard. Going through the effort of dodging it makes you stand out more, and makes you more trackable and targetable. For me it's just compulsive, and my values don't change when the values of the crowd changes. But I can't expect anyone else to download and maintain a git repo that allows you to have basic control over your UI, or to fill out captchas after every pageload.
If you're going to use plain firefox, you might as well use plain chrome. Both of them have the same degree of respect for you, and both of them are owned by the same company. Using plain firefox for freedom is like using an Android phone for freedom. It's amusing that google gets to play the "bad guy" in one of those stories (browser wars) and gets to play the "good guy" in the other (mobile wars.) It's all keyfabe. None of these companies are competing with each other.
> while people have little more to say about Chrome other than "Google gonna Google, but it's fast at least".
Wise words.
You wouldn’t throw the same fit if [insert dictator you don’t have high expectations of here] shot a hundred random civilians compared to if your government did, no?
Mozilla doesn't care about your grievances. It collects lots of telemetry about you by default, and has recently officially removed the obligation not to sell your personal data to third parties etc. It also plans to "introduce AI" into its browser.
> And I would expect that most Firefox users are of the kind who have strong opinions about how their computers work.
On the contrary. Those people have moved on, or are in the process of moving on, from Firefox itself to more privacy-minded forks. Like Palemoon, LibreWolf and maybe Mullvard.
I'm in my 40s I have no desire for this new technology unless we get the kind of AI from Japanese anime.
Because this is something expected from Google. Google has never committed to security, but Mozilla did.
EDIT: I meant privacy, not security.
Firefox does debatable thing, expressed outrage is at Level 11
but when
Chrome does far worse version of thing, expressed outrage is at Level Shrug.--------
[1] Follow one of them around the way they track us online, or let out a bit of information about, for example, their tax affairs, and see how fast lawyers or law enforcement arrive on your doorstep…
Chrome may be a privacy nightmare, but in terms of security it beats Mozilla.
Also, as it turned out, Windows wasn't much more secure than Linux, and I guess we'll find this with Chrome as well. In fact I wonder if this isn't obvious already now that uBlock Origin doesn't work on Chrome any longer?
Besides, isn't Chrome approaching 20 years now and I still cannot have tree style tabs on it so it is still a toy browser meant for causual browsing, not work ;-)
Yes, and it's none of your business how other people spend their electricity.
Until that's resolved, I don't wish that debt incurred for frivolous uses.
Instead of trying to control other people, why can't you start with yourself? Throw away your phone/computer. Go live in a small hut. Practice what you preach.
I don't think it's too much to ask that someone at least define their line if they are saying apps must ask permission to use disk space. I didn't say consent is irrelevant. And I think when you're asking to burden the user with a technical question such as "Can I use 4GB" I struggle to see how most people can make a good informed choice. You can argue in this one case that the AI model is not useful and therefore it's "good actually" if users, not being able to judge what 4GB is, reject it even when they actually had plenty of space. But it seems like those who disagree with me here aren't really speaking to whether the model is useful (or if it has future potential), they're mad specifically about an app downloading a thing that's 'too big.'
Also, just pointing out - Apple also uses ODMs, which it installs on its customers' hardware via its normal default-on software update procedure, to power its (imho mostly useless) AI - to great praise for the positive privacy ramifications of on-device. So it's interesting to me that this one model's presence is being cited as a betrayal of user trust. I admit though that it's whataboutism to imply that excuses the behavior of anyone else - if we are saying that any software downloading anything over 1GB (or whatever) is bad.
"Even if you're paying for the product, you're still the product: Incentives matter, but impunity matters more."
https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar...
(I used to dislike this "GNU/Linux" term, it seemed unimportant - Android showed me why the GNU part of it is)
(I miss Arc, such a shame it only gets security/chromium updates now ...)
And I think Codex's desktop client has a built-in browser now? At least I've seen someone using something like that. Nevermind Atlas is a thing now too. https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-atlas/
(Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you?)
But I think it as sarcasm is also wrong.
Yes it's also that it's AI and mostly that chrome is foisting off all the cost of that AI model to me and other users. Without warning and explaining what this model is, is my workplaces power cost going to be up 10% because of whatever they want to run it for? Who knows.
There'd be a lot less complaining if they'd actually warned and less still if they asked.
By using Chrome or ChromeOS, you agree to the Google Terms of Service located at https://policies.google.com/terms and these Google Chrome and ChromeOS Additional Terms of Service.
That's how technology is nowadays, unfortunately. Pick the tribe you want to support, and watch them blatantly disregard every standard and convention of modern society. Your best bet is to personally divest from these ecosystems and advocate for their regulation and dissolution, if you think it's bad.
We need to be clear that this isn't a technical limitation on the part of these companies, and them choosing to pursue this modus operandi is purely for their own convenience at the cost of the user.
"Not long ago" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
The install file for Chrome 42 circa April, 2015 was 46MB [1].
That's eleven years ago.
The first ever Chrome release installer was around 20MB.
To say politely, you're not telling the truth.
>this isn't anything different.
Chrome installer from 2015 was 46MB.
Chrome installer from 2026 is ~140MB.
That's a 3X increase over a decade, by a grand total of 100MB.
Then they're adding 4GB to that overnight.
It is, I'd wager, something different.
[1] https://google-chrome.en.uptodown.com/windows/download/14786...
[2] https://google-chrome.en.uptodown.com/windows/download/11608...
To get so upset over this is crazy, no need to be so pedantic. Needs change.
Your 2015 MacBook pro had 8gb ram and 128gb storage, the current equivalent has minimum 24gb ram and 1tb or 2tb. Please explain what you're using all this storage for?? Raw footage or something, well there's some double standards it's just a photo too if this is just a browser. 4gb is immaterial.
11 years in human terms isn't "not long ago".
Nether is "never", which is the time when Chrome was under 30mb installed.
>To get so upset over this is crazy, no need to be so pedantic
Of course. It's just that those small, insignificant details that you are wrong about is your entire point.
>Needs change
What needs to change? Says who? Why?
Software not taking extra gigabytes out of the blue for features I never asked for without notifying or having an option to not do that —
— sorry, this absolutely does not need to change.
>Please explain what you're using all this storage for??
Absolutely none of your business.
I'll tell you what it's not for:
4GB LLM's that one of the browsers on my machine decides to download.
You're welcome.
... and not everyone is running the current equivalent. So, while 4gb may be immaterial _to you_, that is not the case for everyone.
Yes, that's the problem
Policy GenAILocalFoundationalModelSettings disables and removes the local model without any flag hacks since 2024. In Canary since January behind Settings > System > On-device AI
The article doesn't mention Chrome version, release channel, whether on fresh vs existing install an if settings were altered.
Actually, it does claim this is the stable release channel. And it's reasonable to assume that if the author is documenting on a fresh profile / user account on the Mac, they probably downloaded the current (that day) release, though we're inferring when don't don't truly know for sure.
> 10. Code-signed, shipped through the normal release channel. This is not test build behaviour. It is Chrome stable.
I think it's poor form to run cover for one of the biggest corporations in the world like this. Don't let them off the hook. As the author correctly points out, metered connections are being abused. Hell, last month I somehow hit ATT's bandwidth limits on my mobile and got throttled for five days. It made my phone so unusable that I turned on hotspot on my work phone and connected to that over wifi when I went to lunch.
So what's your solution? A click-through acceptance of every single library, component, dependency, etc. every app uses?
P.S. - out here in the real world of the people who just use software, they don't want this. Which is its own problem, because they should care more than they do, but we play the hand we're delt.
I think this will be increasingly true in this extended period of more expensive memory and storage media. The Macbook Neo, for example, has 250GB onboard storage and 8gb memory. Many users will not want to spend 2% of their storage and allocate half their memory just to run a web browser.
> You just described 95% of the parts of all software, especially in this era. And think of the Web - how many gigabytes of terrible adtech and tracking code does the average user download in a month of web browsing without an adblocker? Remember, each one probably packages in a couple hundred NPM dependencies into its bundle.
So what are you saying? Don't be mad over this becoming the norm, just shut up and sit down and accept it?
I doubt anyone would appreciate software bloat purely because of how widespread it is[1] - it just hasn't risen to the level where it's so noticeable for such a contemporarily controversial topic yet.
1. As an aside - ubisoft game sizes are absolutely bonkers. I didn't realize that each Assassin's Creed had twelve different operating systems crammed into it but I can't see how else they're clocking in where they do.
It's called a PUP, or Potentially Unwanted Program and most anti-viruses offer to remove them. They can be legitimately installed, but often aren't. (Usually they were shipped in the installers of legitimate software downloaded from sketchy distributors.)
Random AI models being shipped with Chrome is very much a PUP. The user wanted to browse the internet, not use a model. They'd install an extension if they wanted that.
The Ask toolbar was seen as a virus. Mozilla had massive user bleed in Firefox due to installing sponsored extensions in the browser. The only reason this shit isn't regarded the same way is because it's both done by Google and because it's labeled with AI, so all AI bros have to retroactively find an excuse to justify it.
It’s like how people are outraged that electricity is being used in data centers to power AI models. When you do the math, the power consumption is far, far less than all the other things you do all day without thinking twice. But again, anti-AI double standard
i’m not anti-ai by any stretch, but to pretend like their personal choices don’t matter is a bit too dismissive. it’s their choice, we probably shouldn’t imply other people having their own personal taste is hysterical or whatever it is you’re dancing around.
The Avalanche Has Already Started. It is Too Late for the Pebbles to Vote. -- Ambassador Kosh Naranek
The funny thing about "AI Data Centers!!1!" is that they're unsurprising to anyone who knows the progression of this. First there were gigantic computers. Then telecom closets and machine rooms. Those machine rooms and closets got big and hungry! But they were hidden inside drab office space and far inside security perimeters and nobody really paid them mind, because it was part of doing business for the businesses.
Then came the cloud mania and corporations began gutting their machine rooms and migrating to the clouds. So if the consumption and demand for resources ramped up, who knows, but it was transferred from a very distributed, scattered model to centralized in a few big datacenters.
And now those datacenters are becoming an end unto themselves and everyone's gotta get one. Yeah, the scale and consumption of computing increases, but this has been evolutionary and it's only alarming because now, you can drive around a big city and pass several obvious data centers (and a few non-obvious ones) on your way. Did people freak out over AT&T constructing central offices? Dunno, those meant a lot of jobs. We all needed to reach out and touch someone.
But kinda wary about that Death Star.
The 'internet' is not an entity. Outrage and engagement drive ads. Beyond that 'AI' has very little benefit for most people and it's straight loss if you look at consumer electronics (getting price out of PCs) or energy prices.
Just fyi, this is not a temporary phenomenon, not a phase. People dont like spam, robocalls, persistent advertising, even as we use the tools that enable them. They definitely wont like massive job losses, if that actually comes to fruition. Constant surveillance, "slop" news and entertainment, significantly reduced human contact - not popular. Like most technologies, AI benefits a small group - those who control the means of production - but everyone else loses out.
Every paradigm shift offers the opportunity to relitigate old bargains.
I mean, that's absolutely your only option other than simply choosing another browser. This will be a non-issue for 99% of Chrome users.
That we as a society are beholden to corporations is a myth those corporations want you to believe but its not how things actually work. If we come together to say no then those corporations either comply or will cease to exist.
By your same logic. You should be using chromium at the very minimum.
Sure, the good old days where _all of this didn't work without specialized hardware that you bought with every single cartridge_. Mode 7 didn't come for free, it was an entire additional, single purpose chip in the cart on a console that didn't have any concept of task management or even OS. But hey, if you want to have to plug in and swap PCIE cards for each piece of software that you want to run, feel free to reinstall DOS.
I’m a bit confused about the activist mindset being applied to a web browser, as if there’s some kind of human right that entitles you to dictate what will or won’t be bundled inside Chrome.
If the internet was like this in 2015, there would have been riots over Chrome implementing DRM for video. Widevine?! Not on our watch!
You may pay for it, but I and the rest of the planet incur the cost.
I can go live the life of a hermit and the above will still be true.
Your electricity use puts more pollution into our air. It burns our forests. It kills species we all depend on.
No man is an island. Your actions affect others. Just paying your indulgences does not make that basic fact away.
You pay for a portion of it, in money.
The other portion of it is belched up into the atmosphere for future generations to pay.
You are incurring debt and forcing it upon others.
You seem to have no problem whatsoever with using electricity yourself. So when do you get to tell me (or anyone else) how to live? And when does it stop? Btw, this is all bizarrely dramatic since we were talking about small local models anyway.
>future generations
Yeah, and some will also say (using the same arguments) that having children is harmful to the planet and we need "measures" to limit that too.
That does not follow logically for me. As humans we disagree about many things, but we generally agree that things that we do often affect others, so one way or another, we need to come together and decide which things are agreed to be acceptable and which things are not.
I had no idea chrome had this feature. Wish Apple had something like this honestly. https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu...
Wouldn't be easier for an email provider to classify the emails already?
Other than that - if the tool provides utility is good. Personally, I'd not touch it - everyone in the family uses firefox everywhere (incl. phones)
> "just to run a web browser"
I don't even mean to be hyperbolic here, but 'running a web browser' is almost the only purpose of a MacBook Neo for at least 90% of its target audience.
Consider what normal people do on a laptop:
- Email - web browser
- Social media - web browser
- pay bills, research, book trips - web browser
- watch video content - web browser
For many users, you could hide the Dock and just autolaunch Chrome at Startup and it wouldn't have any negative impact on them.
And I'd bet that any browser with more than 5 tabs open, especially without an adblocker, is using whatever portion of its paltry 8GB of RAM that the OS hasn't hogged. So the argument to be made for allowing some feature bloat (and paying the space cost) in a browser is that this is probably the app most people will spend 75-100% of their time in anyway.
I think it's the same extreme, it just shows up in different places, but fair enough. Both views are problematic.
Making major components optional
"I don't want no steenkin DB installed!". Unclick box...app doesn't work right, and now it's the vendors fault, and the vendor has to spend the time to explain to the (possibly non- or even anti-technical) user why. And the user will be on social media complaining about you.
Now, if you want some more extreme thinking, you in theory might never need to develop with a DB; you can just explicitly code all data handling in the app. There you go...no complaints about superfluous installs. Does any developer want to do that? Probably not; DBs are pretty nice abstractions for data handling.
And that's how the AI model here will be justified: this is how apps are built now, accept it or don't use the app. True or not, that'll be the party line.
including some basic information about what they are at install time is easy to do
Easy to do; hard to support. Now you're dealing with "I don't even know what a database is, much less do I want it or not" and you're doing tech support again. And the user will be on social media complaining about you.
Of course, the assumption that most users pay any attention at all to the instructions, disclosures and T&Cs of their software is almost comically quaint. Click, click, click, install.
I think this will be increasingly true in this extended period of more expensive memory and storage media.
This is by no means the first (or, yet AFAIK, worst) shortage of computer components. In the previous ones, I recall noone who said "I won't upgrade to the latest, more bloated version of MYReallyImportantApp because I don't have enough disk/memory/cpu". They delete a less important app, or accept performance isn't so good, or bite the bullet and find the scratch to upgrade. YMMV. And complain about it on social media.
Many users will not want to spend 2% of their storage and allocate half their memory just to run a web browser.
Oh yes they will. For many/most users, a web browser is pretty much all they use outside of maybe games. And most users have exactly zero idea how much each app consumes...they just assume when they double click it's go-time.
Personally, I doubt anything more than "This app uses AI. You good? Y/N." will work.
I always end up coming back to Safari for personal use. It seems to do the best job getting out of my way. I am annoyed by how Safari now handles browser extensions. I’d like them to take a page out of Orion’s book and support both Firefox and Chrome extensions. However, I generally have very few extensions, as they tend to slow things down, so this has been a relatively minor issue. The main things I’ve wanted extensions for in other browsers (like word lookup) have come out of the box in Safari (or Apple platforms as a whole) for quite a long time.
Using the 3 regularly, no, Firefox is not "10 times better than Safari". Though, yes, Chrome(ium) is a ressource hog.
EDIT: whoops, should've scrolled down a bit on the website, looks like Waterfox has vertical tabs as well. damn, probably going to try to migrate to it sometime soon...
EDIT2: of course supports firefox extensions as well, perfect.
If people read the release notes instead of the comment sections, not only would they have a lot more specific knowledge of the work going into the browser but they wouldn't be locked in this cycle of outrage and escalation that normally you only see in YouTube comment sections.
He’s the founder of Brave, by the way.
The action of performing real-life drastic sanctions against people you don’t tolerate is an extremism.
And it is the general opinion of most Mozilla idealists. Mozilla is a political project, and is dangerous to our democracy.
Man, so many things could be better if people cared.
... Mozilla absolutely did this to themselves. Come think of it, they really remind me of what Microsift's been doing with Windows.
We can be positive the entire motivation of Chrome is user behavior surveillance. There's not a nano-chance in all the multiverses that Chrome model is doing anything privately. They've gone to extraordinary length to accomplish this. It's not for free.
What did we expect when they dropped "don't be evil" from their company values?
But yes, there is a 100% chance that logs will get sent back to Google too.
Ooh, this is interesting. There's nothing stopping them from sending jobs down to local machines. That's some 3 billion nodes. We went through this with coin mining and spam botting.
Nothing stopping it except your ire if it's discovered.
Why are AI models something I'd be uniquely unable to trust Google to install, compared all the other code included in Chrome updates? Is your point just that you shouldn't trust Chrome in general?
For me Firefox is (slightly) better than is used to be, not by a wide margin but it's not gotten worse either.
I've been running it since it was Phoenix so I think my experience is at least somewhat valid, which is why I'm so confused by these comments.
Anyway, for a browser that keeps touting how it's privacy-centered, they sure as hell love doing horrible things.
Cliqz is a great example; here's a direct quote from Mozilla (emphasis mine):
> "Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit."
This was not opt-in. It was automatically enabled for a percentage of users in (I believe) Germany. Not only is it a blatant breach of the privacy promise, it's such a massive breach it's almost on the cartoon villainy level.
But for me personally, the final straw was the yet-another-pointless-UI-change at or around v103 (or thereabouts, I don't recall the exact version). When they removed icons from a bunch of menus and went with the rounded style. That version's UI redesign worsened accessibility in so many ways, and complaints by visually-impaired users were simply ignored. All for the sake of a UI redesign yet again.
I consider myself an advanced user, and even I get annoyed by the changes. Now imagine someone not tech savvy, e.g. my mother, trying to use Firefox, when the UI suddenly changes between versions. I can adapt to changes far more easily than them (not that I want to, but Mozilla keeps wanting to force it), but for some, it's going to be a struggle. For that reason alone, I can no longer recommend Firefox to non-tech-savvy people (and I used to!).
Meanwhile, Chrome, although I dislike its UI, has kept it relatively stable throughout. People get used to it, and it stays that way. They don't have to learn new things or change their habits. Now, there are a myriad of issues with Chrome, but constant UI rug-pulls aren't one of them.
That's why I'm comparing Mozilla to Microsoft. They ignore users, and shove changes nobody asked for down their throats --- even if it makes things worse for everyone. The UI change, for example, is kind of like the new context menu in Windows Explorer. On top of that, they tout being privacy-focused everywhere in the marketing, but then their actions show the exact opposite.
People have problems with what they choose to program, not the quality of their code. I too have used FF since the beginning, but switched to Waterfox last year (it took me about two years to make that decision - I didn't make it lightly). I chose WF in large part because its profile remains compatible with FF so I can switch back if they calm the F down and start acting normal again for long enough to rebuild some trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mozilla_Corporati... - start at the end for most recent.
Also go to the website of any one of the FF forks and read their reasons for existing. For example:
Having said that, I keep a copy of Ungoogled Chromium for those websites that refuse to test against FF.
I'm really tired of such overinflated ridiculousness shrillness against Google. Yes there are very real tensions to this company and their as business is scary as heck.
But folks don't seem capable of processing duality, don't seem to be able to do much but ad-hominem until they pass out. Its really so exhausting having such empty energy charging in every single time, and it keeps obstructing any ability to think straight or assess.
Doesn't that make it worse? They forced everyone to download 4GB of crap for nothing. They could have done one of two things:
(1) bundle the model with the application so you can tell ahead of time you're signing up for 4GB of bandwidth usage or
(2) make downloading the model some kind of opt-in thing.
Either of those would have worked. Just because you can easily tolerate 4GB of unplanned bandwidth usage doesn't mean everyone who can't is wrong.
Cause everyone loves a good bonfire and a fresh hot roast.
Really? I'm a total amateur when it comes to doing anything with local models but I tried a few in this range using ollama at this point, and they didn't seem to know much about anything, and I couldn't figure out how to get them to search the web or run other tools, so that was where the experiment ended.
A small local model that can use bash would be a bit of a game-changer for me.
- It failed? This must be a mistake, I’ll try it again. It failed? This must be a mistake, I’ll try it again because then I will complete the task (repeat about every six seconds until you rescue it).
- You know, the best way to deal with a permissions problem is to erase the entire system. That’ll definitely solve those pesky permissions and I’ll complete the task.
Is your position really that any feature that “many” users failed to ask for must require additional consent to install?
And where is this registry features that a sufficient number of users asked for to allow it to be installed silently?
It doesn't have 10,000-ish features that take 4GB of space.
Chrome doesn't take 40TB on my hard drive.
The machine I'm typing it on has 10GB free right now, and that was after I cleaned it up. I noticed the hard drive filling up when I was doing nothing, but I didn't suspect Chrome of all tihngs.
Plus there's the Wikipedia link another user posted.
Since when "being tight on storage space" is a "specific and unusual" case?
That's the whole marketing strategy of selling devices with small built-in storage (and no expandable storage, as iPhones do).
In any case, not wanting a ~150MB installation file to silently download and shit a ~4GB file all over your filesystem is not an unusual* case.
As sufficiently many people have pointed out.
Which ones are you talking about? I'm talking about Firefox, not the Mozilla Corp to be clear.