Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

https://old.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/1t5qayz/chrome_removes_claim_of_ondevice_al_not_sending/

by newsoftheday • 3 months ago

639 251 3 months ago

old.reddit.com

avdelazeri• 3 months ago

And right after https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019219 huh

baq• 3 months ago

Taken completely by surprise, no one could have predicted this /s

askonomm• 3 months ago

I mean to be expected of Google. Even their Google Pay sends data to their servers whenever you use it to make payments, effectively also making it so you can't even use it without service. Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device, and not only is private, but as a result also enables payments entirely offline.

gchamonlive• 3 months ago

Maybe it sends the payload after coming back online, but for I can for instance leave with only my galaxy watch 6, which doesn't have esim, and I'm able to make payments as long as I connect it with my phone before leaving the house.

waterloser• 3 months ago

If your phone doesn't have connection does it still work on your galaxy watch? Or if you leave the phone behind?

Hamuko2• 3 months ago

Google Pay works for a limited amount of uses in offline mode.

https://9to5google.com/2023/12/20/google-wallet-without-inte...

jazzypants• 3 months ago

I'm willing to bet that it's just for telemetry, but this kind of stuff just lends credence to the crazies claiming Google wants to create some kind of absurd botnet with people's devices.

fsckboy• 3 months ago

Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device

so when I use the physical card that is also on Apple Pay, and Apple Pay tells me I just made a transaction as if I had used Apple Pay, that is all happening on my device? what online service is my phone using to track my account with Visa or my credit card issuer, and it's polling or push?

Hamuko2• 3 months ago

You get a notification from Apple Pay when you pay with your physical card? Because I only get a notification from my bank's app whenever I use my physical card. Apple Pay notifications only pop up when using Apple Pay itself.

newsoftheday2• 3 months ago

Wow...that seriously may change my long standing anti-Mac disdain to pro-Mac advocacy, very interesting, even Gemini confirmed what you're saying.

_k2vp• 3 months ago

Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device, and not only is private, but as a result also enables payments entirely offline.

Apple Pay still does send a lot of telemetry about your payments though. https://duti.dev/randoms/wip-location-services/

jcgrillo• 3 months ago

They're probably doing some degenerate form of [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_computing

headwayoldest• 3 months ago

As soon as "don't be evil" became a topic for debate it was over, if you're surprised you haven't been paying attention.

ChrisArchitect2• 3 months ago

Google weighs in on Chrome's weights.bin controversy https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-weights-bin-f...

xbar2• 3 months ago

4GB is not "lightweight" nor are local models.

ChrisArchitect2• 3 months ago

Al or AI?

ulfw• 3 months ago

It's Google. It's AIs

greenavocado• 3 months ago

Temporary escape hatch: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

SunshineTheCat• 3 months ago

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

Markoff2• 3 months ago

why would you use brave with annoying crypto and no customization over superior Vivaldi?

tcp_handshaker3• 3 months ago

Why did I had to come so much down this thread, before seeing a mention of my favorite browser?

dave78• 3 months ago

To each their own, but I've been using Brave for a long time (5+ years I think?). It was one or 2 clicks to turn off the crypto stuff when I first installed it. It was straightforward and no dark patterns were employed. It has never come back, unlike what Google and Firefox tend to do with their annoying features. It even syncs my preferences to any new browser I add so I only had to do it on one computer once and never worry about it again.

The web's dependency on Chromium engines is deeply concerning, I agree. I used Firefox for a long time. But at this point, IMO Brave is the most pragmatic choice if you want a browser that's not Google but "just works" with the modern web.

ifh-hn2• 3 months ago

I'm similar but instead of brave, which I don't trust, prefer Firefox.

tardedmeme2• 3 months ago

I don't trust Firefox either, so I use Zen, which is based on Firefox and also changes the UI.

jeffgreco• 3 months ago

I was very vehement about needing to stay in Chromium — until I tried Zen browser and it turns out I didn’t! (Unless I wanted to watch Prime Video)

newsoftheday2• 3 months ago

My theory is that, since I'm going to do things like banking in my browser, I want one that has a lot of skin in the game. Chrome being backed by Google has trillions of dollars on the line should they ever do anything truly evil. Though this sneaky 4GB download comes close.

SecretDreams2• 3 months ago

There's no skin in the game if they do not think they'll be meaningfully punished by government or consumers for their wrongdoings.

bix63• 3 months ago

Google is not liable for your banking.

iAMkenough• 3 months ago

Edge and Chrome could both be eliminated tomorrow and those trillions would be safe.

You’re the product, not the browser.

plopz• 3 months ago

Brave started off incredibly sketchy and with terrible reputation, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999

I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat.

rideontime• 3 months ago

Same here. I don't care how they responded to the backlash, the fact that it happened in the first place was enough for me.

GeekyBear3• 3 months ago

Brave started off incredibly sketchy

Chrome has stayed incredibly sketchy from the beginning, when Google gained marketshare by sneaking Chrome into the installer for other products that people intentionally downloaded.

Then Chrome did things like "accidentally" uploading your entire browsing history to Google servers when you signed into Gmail.

Now they have declared war on ad blockers, despite the government warning that ad networks are too big a malware vector to ignore.

nelsonic2• 3 months ago

Brave is my default browser for non-sensitive tasks; e.g. most web browsing, GitHub, news, etc. The built-in ad-blocker & tracker blocker alone is worth it. Use chrome for testing. Stock Firefox for anything sensitive.

amatecha3• 3 months ago

I'm just surprised people use Chrome at all. Google has proven over and over they can't be trusted and will exploit you every chance they get.

e402• 3 months ago

Because some things only work in Chrome. It's a fact. It's terrible.

We're the frogs being boiled, over the last decade. People sounded the alarms, but they were looked at like they had tin foil on their heads. Now, it's clear they were right.

I'm speaking generally, of course. I use Firefox for all my personal stuff, except for those situations where it doesn't work.

mrguyorama• 3 months ago

95% of people who use Chrome have no clue what browser they are using.

They got Chrome when it was bundled with every single installer ever for about a decade (which was so prolific and scummy that Microsoft had to make the "default app" picker system more defensive, because Chrome was abusing it more than microsoft apps were).

When you installed Java, you also got Chrome set as your default browser with no interaction.

Or they one click downloaded it from Google.com because of a giant banner saying "You gotta download chrome"

It's insane to me how rarely people on HN seem to actually know the history of this. Everyone who worked in tech support in the 2010s experienced this.

It was an identical strategy that most spyware and adware used at the time.

shevy-java2• 3 months ago

Well, why would I want to use Brave?

Brave is the Google empire aka chromium.

I use thorium, which also belongs to the empire, so it is not really any different to Brave - but I can use ublock origin still, so that's better. I think we are all in the Google empire here. Praising Brave as alternative, simply does not make a whole lot of sense really.

Firefox is a bit outside of it but it basically got rid of most of its users. When I use firefox, I can not play audio on youtube videos. It works fine with thorium. I tried to convince the firefox developer who said everyone on Linux must use pulseaudio (I don't) but there is no reasoning with Mozilla hackers here. He thinks he knows better than everyone else does. (I could recompile firefox from source, but Mozilla uses mozconfig still: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox... - they are too incompetent to transition into meson or cmake. A failing project, no wonder it lost most of its users. Titanic got nothing on the Firefox team.)

bix63• 3 months ago

+1 for Brave. Been on it for years and it’s fantastic. Strongest security settings without issue.

O no they gave you BAT for visiting websites. Ahhh crypto everyone run!

bloqs2• 3 months ago

I'm not familiar with this?

vehemenz• 3 months ago

Ok, why Brave though? There's Safari, Chromium, LibreWolf, Ladybird, and plenty of others.

nazgulsenpai• 3 months ago

They mentioned the built-in adblock

rolymath2• 3 months ago

Brave is has pre-configured as block that works on everything, also a polished sync experience.

fg137• 3 months ago

Not everyone is on Mac. In fact, most people use Windows. So Safari and Ladybird are out of the question, that's two gone.

bloqs2• 3 months ago

1. Because it's most popular. Guaranteed support and "monkey see monkey do".

2. The adblocking is preconfigured, and non technical users trying to find the right extensions has a very bad history of unintentional malware. Ad block? Adblock plus? Ublock? Ublock origin? This is a great example of what floors a lot of technical folk who would be "why not just install ublock origin" and fail to understand the "why should I when I can just get Brave one and it works"

3. Most people don't use macs

afavour• 3 months ago

You’re definitely in a bubble. Google advertises Chrome on TV. Most users haven’t even heard of Brave.

maxloh• 3 months ago

I find Brave's UI uglier than Chrome's.

Unfortunately, there is no way to switch back to the stock Chromium look.

skocznymroczny• 3 months ago

I switched to Firefox when Chrome started messing with the ad blockers. Haven't really had any issues. I prefer developer tools on Chrome but I rarely need to use them anyway.

xacky• 3 months ago

The trouble is that Mozilla has admitted they can't survive without Google's revenue. You are basically using Google by proxy unless you use a truly independent browser engine of they get blocked by Cloudflare for not having enough fingerprinting tech.

kevin_thibedeau2• 3 months ago

Firefox defaults to using DoH with Cloudflare. Less evil than your ISP seeing DNS queries but CF aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

frizlab• 3 months ago

I use Safari personally. It’s good.

platevoltage• 3 months ago

Me too. I don't get the complaints.

touristtam• 3 months ago

After years of using alternative to chrome (Firefox, Chromium, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, etc ...) I have stopped fighting the choice of IT for installing and setting Chrome as the default browser on a Mac. I still use Firefox when I can and religiously reroute URLs to it where possible, but this is beating me down and I would rather spend time playing with LLMs rather than continue this struggle.

coldpie• 3 months ago

I want to use a browser engine that is not developed/owned by Google, so I use Firefox. I also don't want to support Brave's CEO's politics, so I would not use Brave regardless.

blks5• 3 months ago

Brave’s owner is a very sketchy dude. With all the news that were happening around brave, all the shitcoin stuff, I wouldn’t be surprised if the browser is mining crypto.

The single affiliated link scandal is enough to not touch that project with a ten foot pole.

StilesCrisis8• 3 months ago

If you're anti-Google, use Firefox. It's hypocritical to use the browser they're paying to build, then complain about how they generate revenue to fund it.

blks5• 3 months ago

I was using Firefox, Vivaldi, Zen, and finally got fed up with various issues that Zen was having, so I switched to Waterfox. I am very happy and the browser is very fast; difference is immense.

nelsonic2• 3 months ago

Waterford -> WaterFox for anyone wondering: https://www.waterfox.com/

2ndorderthought8• 3 months ago

Waterfox is literally owned by an ad company.

dubious2• 3 months ago

try ironfox sometime. I think its better for privacy.

Brian_K_White• 3 months ago

"I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave."

Bubble indeed. No one should use Brave.

PufPufPuf• 3 months ago

There are other browsers that are free of both Google and sketchy cryptocurrency business!

ScoobleDoodle• 3 months ago

For someone with more knowledge than me: How does this affect other Chromium based browsers?

I did some web searches and see Brave has its own AI thing “Leo” that is intended to preserve privacy. But I don’t think that is on device. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I use Firefox myself but have family and friends who use various Chromium based browsers.

Thank you.

pier25• 3 months ago

Also, does this affect Chrome for iOS, Android, and iPadOS?

sheept2• 3 months ago

The docs say "not yet."[0] My guess is that for Android they probably plan to enable it for high end phones, and for iOS they'll probably just stick to non-API AI features.

[0] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api#hardware-req...

josefcub• 3 months ago

Brave's "Leo" AI is configurable enough to specify local endpoints for processing, instead of going wherever they want it to go. I've set it up to use my own systems, and it works just fine like that.

If you have a beefy enough device, then yes this can be done on-device.

sheept2• 3 months ago

My guess is that this falls under a Google service and the models themselves wouldn't be added to open source Chromium. Even if it were, Chromium forks would likely exclude it like they did for FLoC because of its unpopularity.

scriptsmith• 3 months ago

Chromium mostly does not support this, because it doesn't have the binary blob required to run the inference. However, it does still download the model weights and expose the LanguageModel API, because that part is hooked up.

https://adsm.dev/posts/prompt-api/#which-browsers-support-th...

Packagers might eventually disable that but I tested this behaviour in chromium 148 a few hours ago, and it would download the weights but has trouble running them.

shevy-java2• 3 months ago

What we learn: we can not trust Google.

Zambyte• 3 months ago

Everything made by Google is a liability.

TranquilMarmot• 3 months ago

You're just now learning this? There are whole books about it (check out "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" by Shoshana Zuboff)

saintfire• 3 months ago

Doesn't look like that has been or will ever be (generally) learned.

Fairburn• 3 months ago

Use anything BUT Chrome or Edge.

stronglikedan2• 3 months ago

I've tried them all but nothing so far beats the UX of Chrome.

shlewis• 3 months ago

Genuinely curious what makes you say that. Haven't used Chrome for a really long time and not once I've missed it.

arian_• 3 months ago

"on-device" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the device is a thin client to Google's servers wearing a trench coat.

wafflemaker3• 3 months ago

Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem.

It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them.

I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it!

I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

BrenBarn• 3 months ago

How will it stop ads if it rewards them with money?

tcp_handshaker3• 3 months ago

You question is the answer to your query

stronglikedan2• 3 months ago

It rewards Google with the advertiser's money, and the advertisers don't like paying for extremely low conversion rates.

dsr_• 3 months ago

Because it could eventually be detected as click-fraud, and ad networks hate paying out for click-fraud.

wafflemaker3• 3 months ago

It makes them burn money with no effect. Doesn't work every time, but still sends a message.

robhlt3• 3 months ago

These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.

tardedmeme2• 3 months ago

What metrics does the ad network use to identify the clicks as "fraudulent"?

wafflemaker3• 3 months ago

https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnause...

You seem more knowledgeable in how browsers and js work than me. Does the below text still mean that AdNausem is downloading and running all the advertising JS?

Here's what's in the link: >AdNauseam 'clicks' Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions this is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a background process. This lightweight request signals a 'click' on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads.

footy• 3 months ago

I too am surprised anyone uses Chrome, but I will admit to feeling similarly surprised by how many people use Brave. The company seems so sketchy to me, and I wonder why people who presumably care about web standards are so willing to use Chromium-based anything too.

CrzyLngPwd• 3 months ago

It seems to me that adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people who, for the most part, would be completely unaware it's even happening.

Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.

rishabhaiover• 3 months ago

It would be a reasonable deduction for someone who doesn't have the time or interest to understand the internals.

ProllyInfamous• 3 months ago

The even more frustrating thing here is that after auto-updates everything new [including AI "features"] is turned ON by default.

I do like how Firefox now has a "prevent future AI integrations" checkbox[0], but I just don't believe it anymore (i.e. that it won't magically `uncheck` itself and then enable features I've not requested/authorized).

Which is why I just used an LLM to help me create a local network admin rule to disable the update engine entirely (this SHOULD. NOT. BE. NECESSARY).

[•] <https://www.perplexity.ai/search/b0d3bf5d-7ac7-4d4c-b6c6-32b...>

[0] with a sick darkpattern (for most users to laregly ignore)

GeekyBear3• 3 months ago

adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people

Wasn't that the entire point of Windows Recall as well?

bigyabai• 3 months ago

And Siri, for that matter? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apple-settles-cla...

Sheesh, I'm starting to notice a pattern...

Foobar8568• 3 months ago

You mean that chrome is an internet explorer?

PythagoRascal• 3 months ago

No, I think it was meant literally. Like the IT Crowd skit where Jen refers to the Internet Explorer desktop shortcut as "the button for the internet".

josephcooney• 3 months ago

More of a navigator for the 'scape of the net.

crusty• 3 months ago

Something no one else would want - a little colored dot next to HN user names keyed to their generation, so I could quickly tell why none of the commenter mentioned AOL.

lukan• 3 months ago

Great joke, but taking the word literal and not as product name, it makes a lot of sense to describe chrome as a tool to explore the internet.

(Edit: thinking about it, I think generic terms like "Internet Explorer" should not be trademarkable at all, also I just learned, that also Microsoft "stole" the name and had to pay in a settlement..)

2ndorderthought8• 3 months ago

I called this out when it was announced on here. Supposedly the team lead replied to my comment saying this wouldn't happen. I rolled my eyes but asked will android be able to use those models for ex filtration. No reply. And apparently the original claim was not true either lol.

Maybe I'm misremembering it. Google is awful. My goodness. I hate Android and can't wait to be rid of it. Graphene and it's buddies can't roll it fast enough

lovich6• 3 months ago

They’re all awful.

Does anyone believe a single big tech company isn’t harvesting data en masse from everyone in duplicitous manners?

Like, the best case scenario is that they don’t just blatantly steal your data and instead use dark patterns or inference to take from you without your knowledge.

And then, thanks to the wonderful opinions of the court, the government has full access to said data since you apparently knowingly agreed to giving it to a third party by virtue of the fact that you engaged in any sort of commerce.

It’s why I’m for forcing content being posted on the internet to be non anonymous and tied to a real identity.

The corporations and government already have and abuse all this data. I want the benefit of knowing when someone says “As an American {incredibly divisive shit}” that it’s actually someone in a foreign country sowing chaos for money or political aims.

userbinator3• 3 months ago

Maybe I'm misremembering it.

What you should've done is saved what they said so you could post it directly as evidence. If they're collecting all the data they can, you should naturally also have the right to do the same! I've noticed they're increasingly memory-holing a lot of things that, somewhat coincidentally, are inconvenient truths.

DANmode• 3 months ago

GrapheneOS is all of the best parts of Android / AOSP.

j45• 3 months ago

I'm just not sure how this gives me control of my information, whether I want it sent or not to Google, and if they're retaining it for training or not.

That last question I don't even want to ask because the first two doesn't seem clear.

This could be simply fixed by adding the feature, and defaulting it off, and letting people learn about it and enable it.

kevin_thibedeau2• 3 months ago

adding the feature, and defaulting it off

Nobody gets a promotion for doing that.

SAI_Peregrinus• 2 months ago

I'm just not sure how this gives me control of my information, whether I want it sent or not to Google, and if they're retaining it for training or not.

That's not the goal. Turning your information into their information is the goal. If training an LLM on some data isn't copyright infringement but instead makes it a brand new non-derivative work, then training an LLM on your personal information arguably means it's no longer your personal information, but instead a legally distinct work.

UltraSane2• 3 months ago

I once had someone ask me why closing the web browser turned off his Internet

ZetsuBouKyo• 3 months ago

According to the current shortage of computing power and electricity, I suspect that what they really want is not your data, but the computing power and electricity from your device.

If users' behaviors can be pre-labeled on their own devices, processed with AI, and then sent back, it might save a significant amount of internal computing costs.

suburban_strike2• 3 months ago

Chrome does/did this already. They've never been of any forensic interest to me but the history file stores clusters of domains visited and keywords searched for. It was pitched as user "Journeys." I think they've deprecated it.

https://chromeunboxed.com/chrome-memories-history-journeys

A 4B model is not very useful for text generation, but useful for classification, so you're probably right.

Barbing• 3 months ago

Many around the world search in Facebook and only browse via its in-app browser (sometimes zero-rated / free).

tapanjk• 3 months ago

"Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present to you the Internet."

https://youtu.be/Vywf48Dhyns?si=uOwUSAr1F_QSShfj&t=67

abustamam2• 3 months ago

I'd argue that even pre-AI the average internet surfer never thinks about all the data the sites they use collect. I'm not even sure if my mom uses any apps that aren't web apps (maybe MS word).

But for it all to go to one place? That's a scary amount of data.

suburban_strike2• 3 months ago

It already does, given how much of the internet is fronted by Cloudflare. They're better positioned than most to know what users are doing.

pndy• 3 months ago

Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.

In the end Google has achieved something that Microsoft couldn't with Internet Explorer, and won the Browser Wars.

Google managed to aggressively advertise their browser by optional install "offer" within Windows installers of software. And they were aiming exactly at all those who couldn't tell the difference between the web browsers and who were conditioned by more experienced family members, friends etc. to just blindly click "Next Next, Finish". Thus, that was an easy win.

Being here when we had choice between Gecko, Presto, Trident and later WebKit/Blink makes me sad how easily the IT world allowed this nearly 100% monoculture to happen. There are still other browsers but chances that we return to variety and choice of rendering engines are low.

stefanlindbohm• 3 months ago

What annoys me the most about this is that we as web developers have been here before with IE and managed to get out of it. Then we immediately forgot that lesson and helped Chrome be the new IE in a new coat by adopting ”modern web API’s” that were in fact proprietary Chrome API’s with low respect for the standards process, until every other browser was forced to accept it as a standard. All those ”Safari/Firefox are lagging behind” or ”best supported in Chrome” wasn’t in our best interest or even, from a standards perspective, particularly true.

Gud• 3 months ago

Not just allow, they cheered it on.

akomtu• 3 months ago

It's on-device AI spyware, really. It collects intelligence about the user, summarizes it and sends it to Google, all paid by the user's electricity bill. Deviously clever.

squidsoup2• 3 months ago

Has anyone found a browser with comparably good dev tools to Chrome?

things• 3 months ago

You could try Helium (https://helium.computer/), it's a de-googled chrome and has the same devtools.

squidsoup2• 3 months ago

nice, thank you

nicce• 3 months ago

What makes then so good? I always try them and then go back to Firefox.

fragmede3• 3 months ago

Replay.io has a browser that does time travel debugging, which is really really neat.

Animats• 3 months ago

When Google did that, did they default the "sending data" feature to off?

Do I even need to ask?

ubermonkey• 3 months ago

I still don't understand why so many people have accepting using an ad company's browser.

The motivation vectors exist here to ensure that, over time, Chrome behaves in ways the end user DOES NOT WANT.

RegW• 3 months ago

Because they don't know

(that they are an ad company (and they don't know what the implication is)).

cferry• 3 months ago

My belief is that the AI business is all about data collection. The value isn't so much in the quality of the models (that's what enterprise customers and developers pay to get), but in the amount of data that comes "for free" to whoever hosts the models. And then it's worth whoever buys it thinks it is, like insurers or advertisers.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 3 months ago

"My belief is the AI business is all about data collection."

The "business" of so-called "tech" companies is all about data collection

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most...

wil421• 3 months ago

It’s because they’re all in bed with the Government who wants the same thing. Think of them as an extension of the NSA/CIA and the byproduct of the data collection is being able to sell Ads to make money.

protocolture• 3 months ago

If thats the case why dont they just pay me for it directly.

ndiddy• 3 months ago

Yeah I was wondering how long it would take for a browser company to do something like this. It lets them scrape data without having to deal with anti-scraping provisions on websites, since now their training data collection gets spread across the entire Chrome userbase and they're able to offload the work of bypassing the Cloudflare captchas or whatever to their end users.

_el1s7• 3 months ago

Google doesn't need to that because Google is not affected by any anti-scraping provisions, every website literally begs Google to get scraped.

2ndorderthought8• 3 months ago

Yes. It is seriously not a coincidence that all of the ai companies are now offense contractors for the department of war. It's also not a coincidence they want to ban vpns, and force people to verify themselves with IDs, biometrics and their phones for all of their activities. Meanwhile... Bots can run free.

Surveillance capitalism is so stupid.

basisword• 3 months ago

100% and if you have data other model providers can't 'scrape' (e.g. Google access to Chrome user/usage data) you're in a better position to win.

naruhodo• 3 months ago

When you use a coding model running on someone else's computer, you're giving an AI company your proprietary source code and associated documentation, and you're giving free training examples to make a future AI model better equipped to eliminate your job. Valuable data indeed.

martin-t6• 3 months ago

Exactly. This is what people don't seem to get. LLMs ("AI") are not a tool for us. They are a tool for the owner class and a replacement for us.

account425• 3 months ago

Which is why it is odd to see so many companies jumping on the bandwagon, even those that have always been super protective of their oh so valuable proprietary internal code.

orthecreedence3• 3 months ago

My belief is that the AI business is all about data collection.

In the short term, maybe. That's what you tell investors.

In the long term, it's about altering, shaping, and even constructing reality: making a new and canonical truth for humanity where the ruling classes are invisible to us and the machine that tells us our history and bedtime stories and how we feel is in every device we carry, until it is everywhere, and it has always been everywhere, and it will always be everywhere.

martin-t6• 3 months ago

Up until ~2 weeks ago, I believed that at least opting out of data collection would protect me. I no longer do.

Everyone knows that fines paid by companies (instead of the people making the decisions) are considered simply a cost of doing business. A probabilistic tax, if you will.

What finally dawned on me is that given they need more and more data to train bigger and bigger models, at some point the value of using my data for training will exceed the cost of getting caught using it without/against my consent.

There's no escape unless we change the law.

loremium• 3 months ago

We're way past just collecting for a while now.

it's more like knowledge extraction at this point. younger generations don't build up knowledge any more, everyone else is slowly losing their knowledge by not using it.

Eventually the rug pull comes and knowledge will only be accessible by those who can afford it.

forgotusername6• 3 months ago

Surely there's a googler on here who actually knows whether they are doing this. Anyone actually know or is this post all about Chrome bashing and speculation?

suprjami• 3 months ago

Certainly. You think they're going to comment? That itself would be another headline article.

kevcampb2• 3 months ago

This seems somewhat specious - it's also quite possible that they just altered the wording to make it less verbose. Does anyone have access to the link "Learn more about on-device AI"?

If Chrome starts sending data from the browser back to Google, that's going to be a huge compliance issue. If you work for a company that processes customer data in the browser, you're going to need to ban Chrome.

xbar2• 3 months ago

Good idea.

LtWorf• 3 months ago

Chrome has been doing that since the beginning.

decimalenough• 3 months ago

Chrome has been recording metadata (URLs, timestamps, etc) about your activity since forever, and you can turn this off if you like, see https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity.

They don't record data (POSTs etc).

efilife• 3 months ago

Nitpicky, but metadata is data and this distinction favors google too much in my opinion

kevcampb2• 3 months ago

That's on Google apps, that's not on Chrome. That's not Chrome sending your browsing data or content from inside webpages to Google.

twelvedogs• 3 months ago

it already sends data back to google, the ai stuff, everything that goes in the address bar goes straight to google unless you specifically configure chrome to block it

the on-device ai just offloads some work onto your device

i doubt anyone will be banning chrome, for some reason "it's for ai" is a valid excuse for any amount of sillyness

orthecreedence3• 3 months ago

Yeah, I staunchly refuse to believe an ad company that releases a closed-source browser would violate our privacy. You're probably right that they changed the claim simply because it was too verbose. That's the best and only explanation.

jeroenhd• 3 months ago

"Learn more about on-device AI" links to this: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/16961953

This seems to be what they're hedging against:

Some AI features in Chrome do not rely on on-device Generative models, and those features may still run even if the on-device Generative AI models are removed.

cbeach• 3 months ago

As soon as data starts being exfiltrated to Google (or any Big Tech firm), be sure that governments will demand their copy of the stream too.

The non-disclosure clauses in mass surveillance legislation will ensure the process is opaque to users.

You’ll only find out about it when your door is smashed down and all your devices are seized, because Chrome’s crappy 4GB AI model misinterpreted an innocent photo of your kid in a paddling pool.

aucisson_masque2• 3 months ago

Just today Google launched it's health app on Android and promised to not use people's data to sell them ads.

I called that bullshit, guess this article is just proving my point.

oldfuture• 3 months ago

as if they didn’t have enough data already, good choice to lose any remaining trust from the public over this

foota• 3 months ago

I wonder if this is in response to the chrome incognito lawsuit.

varispeed• 3 months ago

Surely this would be illegal? Personal data without consent?

Or is it a case of too big too fail.

Seems like running governments' infrastructure pays off. No regulator will dare to impose a fine that could collapse the company. But this is very much needed.

£100bn fine and confiscation of assets in the given country could be a start.

orthecreedence3• 3 months ago

Surely this would be illegal? Personal data without consent?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but have you been frozen in ice for the last 20 years? This is effectively the tech industry's raison d'etre.

Danox• 3 months ago

Google and Meta always phone home….

makeramen• 3 months ago

Gemini is also the only major provider where you can't opt out of using your data for training without disabling chat history.

martin-t6• 3 months ago

Why are they so hungry for data? If it's so intelligent, why does it need to learn by imitation so much?

It feels almost like "AI" can't be built without trillions of hours of human work, yet the ownership of the models and the resulting revenue goes only to those in positions of power to exploit that labor instead of the people doing actual work.

popcorncowboy• 3 months ago

This "just keep leaning into the outrage machine" is a terrifyingly effective strategy. I realize lobbying groups have had the "we only need to slip past once" strategy forever, but it feels to me like there's a new level of bare-faced autocratic, anti-social-contract power grab going on in a way that wasn't around 20 years ago.

You see it in our political class. Egregious thing? Nah, try this? Oh you're whining now? Here's some more. Look over here. What about this? Moar gnashing! And now this. Oh you don't like it? Clearly you hate children and freedom and family because this is all and only about protecting the children and saving everyone from rapists, Russians and whatever else the zeitgeist is afraid of.

DeathArrow• 3 months ago

Google is a disease. We should stop spreading it.

userbinator3• 3 months ago

Not surprising at all. Google went full evil long ago and unless people realise quickly what direction they're going, it will get much worse.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

nolok• 3 months ago

I mean, you're not paying for it, you've always been the product.

They didn't alter the deal, you just stopped being as naive.

darepublic• 3 months ago

Would ad blockers stop this traffic from being sent

Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

Related Stories