Hacker News

Aww thanks! To be fair I didn't toe the party line when I was at Google (imo). Although, that caused me increasing amount of grief internally, until I left. From what I hear, things have gotten exponentially worse in that regard for folks still on the team.

In practice it’s useful too. The local translation in Firefox is quite good, and I love that I can translate pages entirely on my machine; without the contents going to another server.

As for Apple foundational models, I think the issue is more that they’re just not very intelligent or good; maybe WWDC will change that; but if you want to implement LLM functionality, you’re better off either calling an API, or shipping a better small on device model.

I think the resentment for Copilot is pretty much universal. People like AI, when it’s not forced upon them.

A lot of these products feel unguided by an “everything must become AI” FOMO movement, rather than actual thoughtful integrations.

Their whole argument is based on this sentence. So I'd expect some rationale. Instead, they provide as "example" links to Google, Microsoft and Apple. The funny thing is that the one by MS is probably the most criticized one, with the company partly backpedaling on it. And Apple is often criticized by LLM aficionados for being quite conservative. Google is the one proposing it.

So my question is: are browsers and operating systems really expected to gain access to language models? If so - by whom: the users or LLM vendors like Google?

> What are you trying to say?

GP is clearly asking ”Are they?”

That “are expected” is a euphemism for “are shoehorning AI in and trying to shove it down users’ throats”. Whereas the truth is nobody (actual end users, that is) wants it.

I hate having to “dodge” all the AI-enabled controls my phone (iOS) is sprouting - I don’t need that shit, but there’s also no alternative.

These features are enabled by default, and in the case of iOS/macOS, desktop Chrome, probably also Copilot+ PCs, download 4 - 7 GB local models without properly explaining this to users. This doesn’t confirm any demand because if you just don’t use the features and don’t fill up your device, you may never notice.

I think this API is probably fine, but only if the user already has a model downloaded and wants these features. Naturally, case in point, Chrome quietly downloads Gemini Nano without any opt-out except through group policy. Things like this and Microsoft’s recent admission that they’ve overindexed on Copilot features in Windows make it increasingly difficult to trust that users actually want more than a few killer AI features, most of which are just ChatGPT.

Anecdotally, non-technical friends and family members know about ChatGPT and increasingly Gemini, get frustrated by Copilot, and don’t know Apple Intelligence exists.

https://superuser.com/questions/1930445/can-i-delete-the-chr...

The word "expected" is a weasel word in this context, especially given how muck backlash MS has received. I'd expect a link to a study where users say: "I'd like to have an LLM integrated with my operating system and my browser" and how it changes over time. Then you can seriously argue for "increasingly expected".

You omitted the clause "by shareholders" after "expected".

What this proves is that browsers and operating systems are increasingly integrating language models, not that they are expected to do so.

The only people who expect them to do so are big tech executives. The average user does not expect nor want Copilot shoved into every possible corner of Windows, and Microsoft themselves have acknowledged this.

Young people love AI when it helps them cheat homework, or when used for roleplay and memes. Generating "content" with AI - is generally more hated, especially art and video.

The young kids I know who are into tech love AI. Albeit this is from a small sample size.

Do they really? Hating on AI slop is a common sentiment on social media, but remember that the opinions you see on social media are often not representative of what the general population thinks at all.

I keep hearing stories about how homework is now useless because every student just gets ChatGPT to do it for them, and from personal experience, I'm inclined to believe them.

features that are opt in are ok. anti features that are opt out is not ok

This is the specific position posted today/yesterday: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#i...

Sigh, when I posted this, I linked to https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#i... (which was posted 11 hours ago). Unfortunately someone changed the link.

The Chrome model requires either "16 GB of RAM or more and 4 CPU cores or more" or "Strictly more than 4 GB of VRAM", and "22 GB of free space" (it uses around 4.4GB but it doesn't want to use the remaining free space).

The model is pretty slow on my M4 Pro mac.

The API allows the browser to use a cloud service instead, but then privacy is lower. So, more privacy for the rich.

> It doesn't make sense at all. So as a user how do you choose which model to use? There could be 3824 models to choose from. The browser might as well set one as default, and we all know how that goes (see: search engine).

...what's the exact problem here? Believe it or not, most non-tech-savvy users use the search engine just fine.

Both, actually. It did make some parts of the Internet better, and some other worse.

Which Internet did make better?

Can you please explain how the hell AI slop is going to "enhance user agency" or "make the web better"?

It's not pearl clutching to suggest that websites will build around quirks of a specific model and then we'll be stuck with it forever. This is an issue for future Google as much as it is for Mozilla and Apple.

We had WebSQL which defactor relied on a specific DB implementation, sqlite, and I suspect it also essentially couldn't be updated because people relied on the quirks of a specific version of sqlite.

Oh no, Chrome is adding something that shouldn't be in the browser in the first place. Oh no, Chrome is adding Googles own AI as only possibilty what surely doesn't hinder competition.

Maybe you shouldn't reflexivly defend Chrome when they clearly abuse their market leading position to push their own AI.