rvnx

The same article at Apple fanboys website somewhat says the opposite: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/07/13/apples-steady-iphone-pr...

Curious where is the reality

No no, it wasn't against you, in fact I used your comment to piggy-back on "my"/our vision :)

At least no regrets purchasing that expensive CPU and the solar panels

The reality is that the move is great, it's a very cool and nice stuff, just that it takes bandwidth and space without letting the user know.

A solution:

New AI features are available for use offline, they will make you able to translate offline, get answers, summaries, etc, would you like to download / install them (~4 GB)?

It is going to fix the experience in the UI. It's a significant misstep by Google in its form (probably lazy/hasted/bureaucratic release), but on the move itself, this is actually a very user-friendly initiative from Google.

It's quite unfair in that specific case to say that Google = evil, and when Qwen = good. It's just about informing the user better so the bandwidth and space is not wasted. Giving user choice.

They will fix it eventually, especially after raising the issue.

But shouting here "Google = bad, me uninstall Google, if you use Google Chrome you are an idiot" are not a productive feedback for a product owner there.

Thanks! Very informative. Lot of new details including the answer from Google and several experiments

You can try the model here: https://chromeai.org/ -> Press the left edit button to start a new context.

It's free, multi-language, well tested, respecting privacy (no cloud needed), nothing extra to install. Quite nice actually.

Like what iPhones do, and everybody is ok with it. Chrome is not just a browser, it's a Window (ahem) to the web, almost an operating system considering the wide scope.

Average game is 80 GB, Call of Duty 200 GB+, etc

It's a quite oriented title:

Google Chrome silently installs a 4 GB AI model on your device without consent

The same news can be read as:

Amazing, Chrome now includes a fully offline AI so you don't have to send your secrets to ChatGPT

A proper journalist would have found the middle ground, explained that this is by default, can be made optional and to raise the issue to Google as "Cons: this uses bandwidth and user is not aware of it".

Protect the kids bla bla bla...

Always the same political excuse

All the models, have to respect their local laws, and most of all, pressure from users and the employees.

They all carry political weights, because humans behind defend their interests, and are promoting some social values.

https://pastebin.com/hjhvsBFg

This answer from Claude is so biased that it is ridiculous

https://x.com/CloudflareDev/status/2031488099725754821

Well, there is this little conflict of interest

Yeah, except the website doesn't have broad access to your computer and filesystem

When a company can remotely push code without explicit user approval, and code that was hostile / almost malicious, it is a backdoor

Can't say they are wrong, after the latest backdoor, or let's say, undocumented functionality that leaks some data that was pushed in Claude Code few days ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759754

It's a weird broken import of French (could be because the EU Parliament) is in Brussels so highly French-speaking. It's also still very incoherent, it mixes up billion and trillion, and it mixes up milliard (the French equivalent) with billion. You absolutely do not want ambiguity there when you work professionally as a politician.

deadline supposed to come from delay but it is incorrect use in French. cabinet is toilet. etc

It's an artificial invented variant, like a kid would invent its own language to speak to other kids, not something that was born out of habit and unified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto shares a similar issue but at least it's cute and more logical though.

AI would be good at creating an international language

https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Robosexuality

Could it become true ?

Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_fetishism we live in the future already

Feels like they cloned the vacuum cleaner Roborock Saros Z70, and attached the arms to a pole instead of the base.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/x9TdqrvDHWY

Especially the arm clamp is the same shape, the actions are practically the same (take object and put in basket, teleoperation with live camera).

The type of thing you have lot of fun for 5 minutes.

Cheaper Unitree robots that starts at 4,900 USD are impressive in comparison.

    Weave says the robot blends autonomy with teleoperation (remote assistance by a Weave specialist) to guarantee that we complete every fold

Ruining the planet, and we perhaps will miss the most important discoveries of the universe because of such programs.

Maybe but if so, it would mean that US spontaneously would go against one of their main strategic interests for the planet ? Doesn't makes too much sense.

It's like this bicycle meme where the person puts a stick in its wheels.

It's for the same reason that petrol cars are encouraged in the US.

Punishing SpaceX will lead to a bigger financial crisis, an upset Elon Musk who might refuse to fund the next democratic election and dozens of thousands of lost jobs (fortunately they already became millionaire, riding the right rocket) for a problem that most of the rich population doesn't care about.

Because in the city, it's about your petrol car, big trucks, and nobody to see the stars and a bit more pollution doesn't change much at that scale from their eyes.

CFCs (these gazes destroying ozone) were a notable exception, because it would lead to death of everyone (the same way that petrol with lead), except death, universally there was no advantage to defend.

But a space filled with US satellites is a great advantage for the US, since they are the only ones with the capabilities to deploy thousands of them, and it's a big business for military intelligence.

I can imagine the main reason they are going to regulate, is so that older satellite debris don't destroy the new shiny satellites, but beauty of the sky is going to be the very least important factor.

The indie band in France also collect subsidies from "SACEM" AND "SPRE" (and YouTubeurs from "SCAM").

With SACEM, if you have a cafe, then you have to pay 4000 USD per year to support musicians, etc etc.

Of course, this is only broadcasting rights, you have to acquire the music (or rent it) on a B2B platform.

If you play AI Lofi in theory you don't have to, but don't worry that inspectors will find a way to fine you.

Ironically, the human band you are playing will get zero, and it will go to the big rich and popular artists.

Their approach of "manually tagging songs that are good 'non-AI' and not good 'AI'" is a questionable approach from an engineering and product perspective.

They would benefit much more from a have a better recommendation and ranking algorithm that carefully monitors all metrics, recommends high-performers, and excludes unpopular content from the feed.

You can use the fact it was AI-generated as a signal, but it is just a signal among other criterias, not an outright ban.

Essentially, explore songs and artists, exploit winners.

    Lot of people abort a song/artist/creator/etc.

    Lot of fake listens.

    People don't like the song of an album

    Creator is historically with a low score

    etc...

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit )

Then you judge the popularity of a song, an album, a creator, a playlist, etc not its creation method. Exactly like a genre type. It's not because you don't like country music that everybody should be forbidden to listen to country music.

It's good for them too, the more streams they do, the more money they get, and the more their audience is engaged. If the person doesn’t like “AI-generated genre” then just downrank it heavily on its recommandation feed, like YouTube or TikTok does.

The real reason is not that people can make money off it, it's that actual people are listening to it.

Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ?

97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music

https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...

No thank you, I will ask Claude and then ask ChatGPT to challenge me, and do a couple of rounds like that.

The first: Has no clue about anything and therefore no useful knowledge and cannot challenge me

The second one: Is proven to willfully give wrong information and will make me do mistakes for sure.

The LLMs will do their best, even if imperfect, since they summarizes what appeared in books.

I prefer to be grounded on what Airbus / Boeing manuals, or on what pilots training book said, than two far more unreliable sources.

Human doctors use LLMs to diagnose too

OpenEvidence claims

    "More than 40% of U.S. physicians use it daily, and it handled around 20 million clinical consultations per month. Over 100 million Americans were treated by a doctor using it in 2025."

The context is very important: decades of a poorly-diagnosed chronic illness had left him deeply distrustful of the medical system.

This is the real root issue.

At 75 years old, he was stubborn. Is that reasonable ? Yes, perfectly. Could he have been right since the beginning ? Certainly. Did he deny evidence ? Yes.

Zero doubt that he was intelligent, everything points toward that direction, but that doesn't make a person less stubborn, because accepting the evidence, is also accepting that you were wrong if you initially postured yourself as adversarial instead of cooperative.

He would have read Wikipedia, scientific papers, etc, even without AI.

He did not want to be convinced. It works both ways:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/woman-says-chatgpt-saved-her-...

or

https://www.today.com/health/mom-chatgpt-diagnosis-pain-rcna...

Nonetheless, someone very smart, just didn't want to move from his position.

There are quite a few disclaimers everywhere that soften confidence: "always ask a medical specialist", "I'm not a doctor", "this could have been this or that but really not sure", etc.

No, this flow is actually very good.

Like any domain, when you have questions or need a solution, you make research first, then you ask a specialist.

If you explain well the symptoms and context you can have proper advices and then decide on the path next:

    Case A) It looks benign and advices / information that you collected seem reasonable, then you go your way.

    Case B) You need second opinion of a specialist because the subject is too complex, or there are medications that you need approval.

At home you have the time to assess the options, pros and cons of each approaches, the possible questions to ask and then challenge the doctor.

Shared decision-making is an actual evidence-based model of care, and patients who arrive understanding their condition and carrying specific questions tend to get better attention and better outcomes.

Some doctors get annoyed, because they have big ego and choose to be patronizing, but it is exactly their job to answer such questions.

    With LLMs, it's quite good, you get nuanced and rather useful answers.

    Before LLMs, no matter the topic you searched for, the answer was the same: "you have cancer / an [obviously deadly] rare disease"

    • The doctors are not affordable
    • They are too busy for you (< 15 minutes)
    • You may need to wait months to get an appointment
    • They are not good (country-side is an example, and sometimes even country-level)

So, you have something deeply bothering you, your only appointment is in 4 months. It would be insane not to take the time to explore different solutions and not to come informed about the topic.

If you express your prompt properly and do not rely on imagery, you can absolutely have top-tier advices.

One scenario: it will be profitable because European and US governments are going to forbid companies like NVIDIA to use Chinese machines.

About privacy invasion, it works for all countries in the world.

Vendor-lock is quite high, possibly higher in the US.

Look at iPhone, hardware is behind, restricted, unauditable privacy and questionable software in terms of performance (especially starting iOS 26, where you lost the choice for Liquid Glass).

Impossible to reasonably sync AirPods or watches, Macbook or choose the firmware version.

In comparison, the irony is that China offers the freedom (like with Qwen).

On these supposedly evil Chinese devices (phones, headphones, watches, etc), you have an open platform with great hardware, that you can modify as much as you want, and the only people who restrict you is... Google (making sure you cannot root without losing to important apps, so technically you can root, but practically you can't).

All the claims about "China = bad hardware and bad software" were true 20 years ago, but this is not the case anymore.

That being said, should certainly be quite cautious about default setup... you have US surveillance, PLUS, Chinese surveillance.

It doesn't help that Coca-Cola has privileged access to decocainized flavor extract, from there, others are guaranteed to struggle to get access to one ingredient.

The main flabbergasting stuff about Coca-Cola is the fact that they choose to use HFCS in some countries, and sugar in others, and this is due to... protectionism again that artificially skews competition like for electronics.

Yes and that will be great. More competition = more choice = less political risk = great.

Protectionism policies are blocking low prices (what about tariffs ? what about monopolies ?) and are benefiting only the ones holding the knowledge and factories at the detriment of the rest of humanity.

Can't wait for ASML / TSMC / Zeiss equivalents so we can have access to memory sticks and GPUs / AI accelerators to run Qwen Super-Large distilled on Claude Zulu model, GTA VIII or whatever will come at that time.

It could be that US would benefit from having a more generic GDPR law rather than individual enforcement.