Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by wahnfrieden | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

wahnfrieden

You're missing that this is anti-AI activism

View on HN

We should be actively anti-AI being part of a web browser just like that though.

Why? The AI assistance in Chrome dev tools is really useful. And I also use Google AI mode all the time.

Sure, but what's the point of obfuscating that?

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.

Please stop assuming everyone thinks like you. If I can replace even something like translate with a local model that's just a single thing, off the top of my head, that could potentially benefit. I see no reason why these experiments should not be taking place.

And the reason they can't do something as simple and easy as ask for consent is...?

You provide consent by using the software.

You consent by reading this comment.

You joke, but that's how all of FAANG sees things:

  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.

https://www.google.com/chrome/terms/

My statement was literal. Legally.

Still has the same vibe as "she did consent by wearing such a short skirt".

This doesn't explain why it is beyond their ability to expressly ask for it, or notify the user in any way. Very literal example of the one not precluding the other.

Same reason the iPhone doesn't ask you which App Store you want to use. If you disagreed with the default choice, you'd be using another phone.

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.

I understand where you're coming from, but what you're describing is why they don't want or have to, not why they can't, which is specifically what I'm focused on as I think we otherwise just take these being the same thing as a baseline assumption, which is obviously not the case.

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.

Imagine Amazon deciding to take out $1000 from a credit card just because you use it to buy a phone case. Because you "consented" by using their marketplace.

They probably didn't even think about that. Admittedly, 4GB is quite big, but if I were in their shoes, I would have expected that people are thrilled about using a local LLM instead of sending data to a cloud-based LLM.

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.

Disk space is one thing, but the actual download size is higher than some people's data allowances altogether! It baffles me that a lot of people don't seem to be aware of this

I am not assuming everyone thinks like me, I’m advocating for my position.

It's not about AI. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be ok with eg a calculator app shipping a 4GB word processor.

I am a computer scientist and have studied AI for over 30 years, I use AI every single day and I speak all over the world about the responsible and ethical use of AI... not sure how that makes me anti-ai?

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?

We don't have AI. We have language models trained by rapacious companies on copyrighted material with no concern for copyright violations and with a penchant for intentionally anthropomorhizing their models.

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.

It's not a copyright violation if courts have ruled it's not

I have no pay scale to worry about, I own the software I build and don't rely on wages

> It's not a copyright violation if courts have ruled it's not

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.

It is if we as a society decide it is.

Maybe it’s pro-browser activism.

A browser should render web pages not bring its own AI

Yeah, it's already egregious how resource intensive browsing the web can be, between the browser and the content its loading. Why should we just accept that Google will force another performance hit by loading up an AI model as well?

I guess they took all the Chrome RAM usage memes as feature requests.

It is? Or is it just a pragmatic dislike?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com