10 ms·

Framing this as needing "consent" is deeply misguided. It's as silly as claiming that Microsoft Word installed an English language spellcheck dictionary without

Framing this as needing "consent" is deeply misguided. It's as silly as claiming that Microsoft Word installed an English language spellcheck dictionary 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 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.

croes 5mo ago
A spellchecker is a standard function of a text program. 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?
- TulliusCicero 5mo ago
  By that reasoning, any novel/cutting-edge addition to a browser or other software is wrong? Every standard was new at some point.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - llbbdd 5mo ago
    > By that reasoning, any novel/cutting-edge addition to a browser or other software is wrong? 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 http://info.cern.ch.
  - wtallis 5mo ago
    The question of whether web browsers will one day be expected to normally include an LLM is not at all relevant to the situation at hand, where that absolutely is not the expected or typical behavior of a browser. Google should be asking for consent now even if they expect in several years time to be able to presume consent for this.
    - TulliusCicero 5mo ago
      So the principle is that any as of yet non-standard addition to software needs explicit consent from the user?
      - wtallis 5mo ago
        Major feature updates require consent, yes. Automatic updates are for bug fixes and security patches. It is disrespectful to the user to automatically deploy any update that changes the UI without warning or consent. I like my toolbar buttons to stay where I left them.
  - fg137 5mo ago
    I am against built-in VPN for the same reason I am against this. There is nothing novel or cutting edge about them. Any browser could have done it back in 2003, but they didn't do it for a reason. Of course, it's not like any of this matters in the end.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - croes 5mo ago
    Any addition that has nothing to do with the purpose of the program is wrong. 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
- J-Kuhn 5mo ago
  At least Word lets me choose which dictionaries I want to install during its installation. With an estimate on how much disk space it will take.
- hoppyhoppy2 5mo ago
  There was a point in time when a spellchecker was not a standard function of a text program, and a spellcheck dictionary would have been considered a large file to include with that kind of software. 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."
  - croes 5mo ago
    > at some future time we'll say, "but a local AI model is a standard function of a web browser. And before that point ask the user for consent. It’s not that hard. If you make a sudden big change, ask for consent.
wahnfrieden 5mo ago
You're missing that this is anti-AI activism
- pier25 5mo ago
  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.
- croes 5mo ago
  Maybe it’s pro-browser activism. A browser should render web pages not bring its own AI
  - brendoelfrendo 5mo ago
    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?
    - account42 5mo ago
      I guess they took all the Chrome RAM usage memes as feature requests.
- nvr219 5mo ago
  We should be actively anti-AI being part of a web browser just like that though.
  - hparadiz 5mo ago
    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.
    - 5mo ago
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
oaiey 5mo ago
It is changing the product significantly. I wanted/consented to a browser. Nothing more. Agreeable, nothing new with the browser vendor pushing plugins down our throat which are not browser core features, nevertheless not right.
- jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
  > nothing new with the browser vendor pushing plugins down our throat which are not browser core features 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.
  - esseph 5mo ago
    > this idea of "browser core features" is, on the face of it, to me, reduction deeply into the absurd. 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.
    - wtallis 5mo ago
      My biggest beef with the browser's unchecked scope creep is that its role as an application platform is fulfilled in a manner that's completely at odds with the original purpose of a browser as a user agent. They're running untrusted third party code by default, letting sites embed spyware, and constantly adding more anti-features. Treating this as normal is insane from an unindoctrinated viewpoint. Acting like people who question this status quo are being unreasonable is an insult to everyone who cares about privacy or security.
ddtaylor 5mo ago
I think it falls more into the category of needing consent like a crypto miner would. If I use a piece of software to do X and it begins using more resources to do Y that can be a serious issue and is at the heart of this discussion.
- ezfe 5mo ago
  A crypto miner needs consent because it burns your battery and CPU power with no benefit to you. This AI model would only be used when you invoke it so the only problem is disk space, which the comment you're replying to acknowledges as a point of issue.
  - J-Kuhn 5mo ago
    Or some website decides for you that you now want to talk to your local AI chatbot using google chrome prompt api. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
  - OsrsNeedsf2P 5mo ago
    A crypto miner generates revenue needed to run the service, similar to ads.
  - kennywinker 5mo ago
    > This AI model would only be used when you invoke it 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?
    - robinsonb5 5mo ago
      Indeed. Trusting that it will only be processing the user's queries - as opposed to, say, becoming part of a distributed grid of AI processing nodes - isn't a bet I'd be willing to place much money on.
  - bigbadfeline 5mo ago
luke727 5mo ago
Where does this line of thinking end? What couldn't be construed as part of the software?
- CamperBob2 5mo ago
  It ends at the usual place, the shrink-wrap agreement. What did the license agreement say?
  - olyjohn 5mo ago
    Nobody knows because its unreasonable to expect people to read them.
  - itemize123 5mo ago
    agreements don't always hold up to legal scrutiny. In cases where it is unreasonable, it won't be able to stand up in court. And in any case, this is not a legal matter but a user experience / public opinion one
    - CamperBob2 5mo ago
      You're right, it's not a legal matter. You and I will readily agree that bundling a 4 GB language model with a Web browser is unreasonable, but how do you envision making that case in court? My guess is that maybe one in 1000 Chrome users will even notice it.
- jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
  What is the line is a good question. I'm strongly pro-user agency, but I still think consent is more around what actually impacts the user. If there's some safeguards, for exceptional cirumstances that users can get into if they need it, I feel like the software has to be doing more, having more of an impact on you for there to be an offense or problem here. 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.
jchw 5mo ago
It's additional software that many users didn't ask for, don't want and will not be aware of. Reminds me a bit of back when installing software was a minefield due to all of the integrated "promotions" for things like toolbars, only now they've vertically integrated the unwanted software, cutting out the middleman. 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.
- kaptainscarlet 5mo ago
  An AI is not additional software. Infact, a model is not software.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > a model is not software When does code become software?
  - jchw 5mo ago
    How does that change anything? It doesn't matter if you categorize it as software or not, unwanted is unwanted. And frankly I just flatly disagree, you could certainly make the case that model weights are a form of software.
    - dylan604 5mo ago
      If they downloaded a 4GiB media file of some Irish band that nobody asked for, people would be upset as well. It doesn't matter what the 4GiB contains. If it is not going to be used by the user and the user didn't ask for it, that's just idiotic to think people would not be upset about it.
soupspaces 5mo ago
[dead]
picsao 5mo ago
[dead]
ferngodfather 5mo ago
Except spellcheck is a reasonably foreseeable part of a word processor. An AI model isn't really a common component of a typical web browser.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
ljm 5mo ago
In principle I agree, but chrome has an auto-update setup and using that mechanism to download several GBs of data that is not critical to the app itself is cause for question. 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.
- Dig1t 5mo ago
  >Chrome is not entitled to my disk space just because I installed it 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.
  - pocksuppet 5mo ago
    This is a good point, given there is no shortage of alternative browsers, even if there is a relative paucity of alternative browser engines.
  - ljm 5mo ago
    It's entitled to what is a reasonable usage of disk space, which you generally know by the size of the installer. Some install mechanisms bypass that because they give you a minimal installer that then downloads the full package. It's not entitled to unlimited usage. 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.
robot-wrangler 5mo ago
If someone puts a camera and a microphone on devices that don't need them, then it's a) pushing up the price of goods for everyone with features that mainly serve corporate, b) there are bad actors out there even if you think corporate is a good one, c) no reason to think corporate is a good actor. 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.
- marcosdumay 5mo ago
  Shipping the model with the browser is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. The alternative is sending the data to Google.
  - _carbyau_ 5mo ago
    Back to the assumptions. 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?
    - blackoil 5mo ago
      Why assume? it should be observable. You can check the code and data traffic to see how it is used.
      - robot-wrangler 5mo ago
        Can't observe the future, so learn from the past.. or use common sense. You don't react to a stranger or a mysterious camera in your household by saying, wow ok, let's see if anything bad happens.
thorum 5mo ago
You’re probably right in a literal technical sense, but a very large number of people (maybe most?) would choose “no” if properly informed and asked for consent, and lots of people are morally opposed even in principle to downloading a large AI model onto their computer. I’m not one of them, but they’re out there. So in a cultural sense, it is different.
- xp84 5mo ago
  What % of Chrome users (this is the default browser that nearly every 'normal person' uses) do you think is confident (and knowledgeable) enough to answer this quiz: 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 I'd say maybe 5% could get 80% of those right. So, most people would be purely guessing the same way I'd be guessing if you asked me if I want 800mg of Beta-Carotene for $1. I don't know for sure if I need any Beta-Carotene, and if I did need some I wouldn't know if 800mg is a little, just right, or way more than I'd ever need, because I'm not a nutritionist.
eCa 5mo ago
Couldn't the same argument be made for Chrome suddenly including a bitcoin miner? Seems like that would be a difference in degree rather than in kind.
- xp84 5mo ago
  The difference would be intent. A nearby comment worries that the endgame is the ODM being used to monitor you and report back. Certainly wouldn't put it past the world's biggest ad company to think of that! And if that is what purpose it's put to, I think I'll be mad too. 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.
tremon 5mo ago
Even Microsoft doesn't install a spellcheck dictionary unprompted; that happens when a user/admin goes into the app configuration and changes the language support options.
alliao 5mo ago
i think if google can show that they know what it does and able to contain it then sure, it's a tool they have power over. if not then I don't see how it is being contained by the terms
antonvs 5mo ago
> You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. 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.
roblh 5mo ago
Yeah, no. I installed a browser, I expect it to install the required components for it to work _as a browser_. I do not need a local AI model for it to do that. If there are features that need that, fine, but I expect it to at the very least ask permission since those are absolutely not required functions. It’s like if Word installed a bunch CAD modeling software in the background. There’s just no way it needs that to function for it’s primary purpose.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
knollimar 5mo ago
Framing this as needing "consent" is deeply misguided. It's as silly as claiming that Java installed an ask.com toolbar without your consent. It's just part of the software. You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it.
- yallpendantools 5mo ago
  wellackshually the bloatware explicitly asked for consent. There was a checkbox at the end of the EULA asking you "I also don't agree to not install the ask.com toolbar. You wouldn't do that, would you?". There is a state of that checkbox which would not install the toolbar, because, as you know, it's not part of the software I'm trying to install. That state, however, is left as an exercise for the decompiler. :) 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.
  - knollimar 5mo ago
    I thought the issue with Java was that checkmark would check itself on update? I was trying to draw that parallel but maybe I'm misremembering
    - xxs 5mo ago
      that's not true. ask.com nonsese did ask consent and it was trivial to uninstall.
ajkjk 5mo ago
Can't stand this kind of corporate apologism. It's one thing to disagree about whether this is a reasonable thing to do, but there's no need to additionally gaslight people about whether their category of grievance is even valid. Of course it's consent. They did it, without consent, that is a simple and factual statement. You consented to one thing (a browser) and not another (a giant AI file). And then the question with consent is whether the thing is something a person ought to seek consent for, which is entirely relative to how the person will feel about it. Installing a dictionary, probably not because it's small. Installing a 4GB file, probably yes. Obviously.
grayhatter 5mo ago
> Framing it around consent is unnecessarily inflammatory and makes it harder to have a discussion, not easier. 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.
- BizarroLand 5mo ago
  Exactly this. My issue with Microslop isn't that they're using AI, that is its own can of worms. 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.
- ToValueFunfetti 5mo ago
  I don't think this is a question of framing or ignoring problematic behavior at all. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't find it anywhere near comparably egregious if Google added a new developer option without your consent- the most significant problem is the 4GB and the LLM. And, of course, you did consent to their software terms. You are free to switch browsers. What does consent have to do with this?
  - pasquinelli 5mo ago
    yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has value.
    - Zetaphor 5mo ago
munk-a 5mo ago
If Rockstar games can be criticized for Hot Coffee then Chrome can absolutely be criticized for such bloat ware.
- llbbdd 5mo ago
  That was also stupid
- iammattmurphy 5mo ago
  TIL, what a nutty situation.
- Griffinsauce 5mo ago
  Invoking a different case with bad logic doesn't make this one any stronger. I never understand this impulse, is it just "nuh uh!"?
titzer 5mo ago
> It's just part of the software. 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.
stevenally 5mo ago
They are abusing our trust. That's the issue.
- oriettaxx 5mo ago
  not just that, unfortunately 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-xai-give-us-access-to-ai-models-for-security-testing https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/5/5/microsoft-google-...
foxes 5mo ago
Disagree 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.
nobodyandproud 5mo ago
Disagree. By your framing, might as well add a 4 Gb LLM to grep as an unasked for and downloaded option.
abubakir1997 5mo ago
Its not misleading, AI models (unlike English spelling check) has the potential to mine data on users and invade privacy all under the name of "training the model". I am very skeptical of AI models. Governments and big corp have the ability to exploit AI models and none of them a righteous for us to feel safe from a move like that.
- zachrip 5mo ago
  Local models exist as part of the solution to privacy invasion. Not saying google has never been nefarious, but the whole point of local models is that your data doesn't leave your device.
  - mr_machine 5mo ago
    Pretty sure from Google's standpoint, respecting privacy is a downside of local models. For them, the upside is using your compute rather than theirs.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
jasonfarnon 5mo ago
No, what's misguided is equating the legal definition of consent ("It's in the ToS") with actual consent. When everyone (especially google) knows 99% of users don't read the ToS. Can they sue over it in a court of law? Maybe, maybe not. But they can write articles, spread the word and generate bad press for google. Then maybe consent will be actual rather than constructive.
pasquinelli 5mo ago
i wonder how exactly it makes it harder to have a discussion. would it be okay to talk about spyware in terms of consent, or would that make it harder to discuss as well? can you think of a situation that it wouldn't be unhelpful to frame what software does in terms of consent?
Razengan 5mo ago
Hey if people could go for their pitchforks and torches over Apple giving them a free U2 album that ate up limited device storage space, 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/ 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://hn.algolia.com/?q=Anthropic+spyware
- ascorbic 5mo ago
  That was an even more ridiculous post. It wasn't spyware, it was a messaging bridge being installed for exactly the purpose it was intended. It was Claude Desktop installing a bridge that would allow Claude browser plugins to communicate with it. It was only used if the user had installed the browser plugin, and all it did was grant that plugin access to the app that had installed it!
  - account42 5mo ago
    So it's a backdoor to bypass the browser sandbox. Spyware is an apt label for that.
    - ascorbic 5mo ago
      It's not a backdoor: it's using a feature for the purpose for which it was designed. It's not granting plugins access to anything except itself
      - Razengan 5mo ago
        It's the sheer gall of doing shit like that on my system without asking me. Creating a shitload of files to modify the settings of OTHER apps, wtaf? I asked Codex to look into it: https://i.imgur.com/lvOjR0x.png https://i.imgur.com/lvOjR0x.png
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
"You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it." Were the terms something like https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/refs/heads/main/chrome/app/resources/terms/terms_en.html 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/ 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-resources/lawful-basis/consent/how-should-we-obtain-record-and-manage-consent/ 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/edpb_guidelines_202005_consent_en.pdf 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 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
exabrial 5mo ago
please don't defend this anymore. People installed an html client, not a backdoor into their computer.
- _karie_ 5mo ago
  Incorrect. Adding LLMs in the browser IS the backdoor into your computer.
iberator 5mo ago
hey i found google ceo here!
gessha 5mo ago
News from the year 2030: Google takes your credit card info, sells it on the black market for pennies and kicks you in the groin. 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.
- wavemode 5mo ago
  You're arguing in bad faith.
  - gessha 5mo ago
    It’s not in bad faith, it’s reductio as absurdum. Installation is not consent.
itemize123 5mo ago
you are being very disingenuous. there are certain expectations from a software vendor. taking things into extreme, if something install malware as an update on your computer, is it not a silly claim that it is free for vendor to do so?
lynx97 5mo ago
I disagree. Its a browser, damnit. Framing it as non-consentual AI is the right way. BTW, how much does Google pay you for this comment?
zelon88 5mo ago
> It's just part of the software. You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it. 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?
laserbeam 5mo ago
That's like saying users have no right to push against certain features. It's like saying Windows Recall was always ok and there was never any reason to demand it not be installed. The only difference is one can choose to use a different browser easier than they can choose a different OS. 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.
- account42 5mo ago
  > The only difference is one can choose to use a different browser easier than they can choose a different OS. 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.
  - Zetaphor 5mo ago
    Changing the browser is an order of magnitude less friction than changing browsers. The UX in every browser is essentially the same, that's not the case between Windows, Mac, and the various DE's on Linux
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
0x49d1 5mo ago
But then they should state that minimum size of Chrome is 5-6GB (lol, OS size). Sure this feature should be installed by informing the user what are the pros/cons; just installing without asking - means that you are using user's traffic (huge for mobile, for example) and disk (quite a large part) without notice, which is probably a bit shady.
user3939382 5mo ago
So… every software package you’ve installed has the right to consume an unlimited amount of your system’s resources? It’s an absurd argument. By that logic it can fill your hard drive, RAM, and max out your network bandwidth and the user would have somehow agreed.
register 5mo ago
Under the EU AI act this REQUIRES disclosure. The user should be informed that the system is installing an LLM
ZetsuBouKyo 5mo ago
I agree to install it, but I don’t agree to automatic updates. The bigger problem is, I can hardly find where to disable Google’s automatic updates. In the end, I just locked the file permissions to stop that virus-like auto-update program from running.
- ascorbic 5mo ago
  Auto-updating browsers is one of the best advances in the web dev space in the past decade. I find it hard to believe that anyone who did web development before evergreen browsers became a thing would ever disagree.
  - account42 5mo ago
    Best advances for whom? Lazy web developers? 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.
    - ascorbic 5mo ago
      Web developers, users who want don't want security issues in their browser, and anyone who wants consistent rendering of sites
      - wtallis 5mo ago
        > and anyone who wants consistent rendering of sites 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.
  - 5mo ago
circuit10 5mo ago
I think the disk space and bandwidth are what make consent needed, because it’s implied that the browser may download small pieces of data but the user would not expect such a large file be downloaded so it should check with them
account42 5mo ago
This kind of unwanted software installed with a product you want used to be clearly considered malware. But these days software companies all think they own your computer and can do whatever they want.
gamerslexus 5mo ago
Chrome's model is based on copyright infringement and court cases are pending regarding legality. Even if spellcheck dictionary was 4 GB, installing bloated but legal software is different.
cataflutter 5mo ago
Disagreed; it's not a download you'd expect and it's also at least an order or two of magnitude than you'd expect to find reasonable for browsing a page. 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.
abc123abc123 5mo ago
Incorrect. What you consent to, is the software, with its intended use and design. It is not consent to allowing the vendor to install what ever software, for what ever use case, of infinite size, forever. With your interpretation, MS could install a torrent client, child porn or what ever, and that cleraly shows that your interpretation leads to a reductio ad absurdum. 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.
- crazygringo 5mo ago
  > 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.
derfurth 5mo ago
Yes plus there is lot of confusion; the author is citing ePrivacy and GDPR that are about PIIs, not at all about consenting to an install.
eeixlk 5mo ago
When you decide to build autoupdate features into your product, in some way you are building trust that you wont break expectations with your users. If google wants to pull a microsoft and try to force me to use another of their products I dont want to use, they are welcome to die in the same way as IE did.
ccvannorman 5mo ago
[dead]
monegator 5mo ago
Let's say i give zero fucks about gemini and "AI" in general, or in any case am not using google's offering. 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)
RobRivera 5mo ago
Framing another person's opinion as silly is silly
williamkemi 5mo ago
I have a 256 gb m1 mac. It's enough, but I uninstall apps and delete files ruthlessly when I don't need them and space is filling up. 4 GB of data which I don't want and didn't had in mind 2021 when I bought my computer is a big deal. Perhaps I should upgrade, maybe I'm behind and slow to do so, maybe 256 GB was a bad idea from the start. Maybe, but it has worked for 5 years and I don't have an urgent need to upgrade for any reason. For me 4 GB of something I would actively go and delete, just for it to be downloaded again and again is perhaps not non-consensual but absolutely disrespectful
bixxie09 5mo ago
[dead]
jesterson 5mo ago
Back in days this approach in software was called trojan horse and considered as malware
neoyagami 5mo ago
Its like when itunes for windows installed safari silently :/
scrubs 5mo ago
Misguided? 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.
impalallama 5mo ago
You could use the argument to justify installing functionally anything. From a key logger sending over everything you type to a crypto miner mining exclusively for google. I download a browser to browse the web. An AI agent is something else.
Scrutiny6707 5mo ago
It's your computer, and anything arriving on it needs to be done by your consent. 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.

croes 5mo ago

A spellchecker is a standard function of a text program. 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?

TulliusCicero 5mo ago
By that reasoning, any novel/cutting-edge addition to a browser or other software is wrong? Every standard was new at some point.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- llbbdd 5mo ago
  > By that reasoning, any novel/cutting-edge addition to a browser or other software is wrong? 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 http://info.cern.ch.
- wtallis 5mo ago
  The question of whether web browsers will one day be expected to normally include an LLM is not at all relevant to the situation at hand, where that absolutely is not the expected or typical behavior of a browser. Google should be asking for consent now even if they expect in several years time to be able to presume consent for this.
  - TulliusCicero 5mo ago
    So the principle is that any as of yet non-standard addition to software needs explicit consent from the user?
    - wtallis 5mo ago
      Major feature updates require consent, yes. Automatic updates are for bug fixes and security patches. It is disrespectful to the user to automatically deploy any update that changes the UI without warning or consent. I like my toolbar buttons to stay where I left them.
- fg137 5mo ago
  I am against built-in VPN for the same reason I am against this. There is nothing novel or cutting edge about them. Any browser could have done it back in 2003, but they didn't do it for a reason. Of course, it's not like any of this matters in the end.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- croes 5mo ago
  Any addition that has nothing to do with the purpose of the program is wrong. 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
J-Kuhn 5mo ago
At least Word lets me choose which dictionaries I want to install during its installation. With an estimate on how much disk space it will take.
hoppyhoppy2 5mo ago
There was a point in time when a spellchecker was not a standard function of a text program, and a spellcheck dictionary would have been considered a large file to include with that kind of software. 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."
- croes 5mo ago
  > at some future time we'll say, "but a local AI model is a standard function of a web browser. And before that point ask the user for consent. It’s not that hard. If you make a sudden big change, ask for consent.

wahnfrieden 5mo ago

You're missing that this is anti-AI activism

pier25 5mo ago
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.
croes 5mo ago
Maybe it’s pro-browser activism. A browser should render web pages not bring its own AI
- brendoelfrendo 5mo ago
  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?
  - account42 5mo ago
    I guess they took all the Chrome RAM usage memes as feature requests.
nvr219 5mo ago
We should be actively anti-AI being part of a web browser just like that though.
- hparadiz 5mo ago
  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.
  - 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

oaiey 5mo ago

It is changing the product significantly. I wanted/consented to a browser. Nothing more. Agreeable, nothing new with the browser vendor pushing plugins down our throat which are not browser core features, nevertheless not right.

jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
> nothing new with the browser vendor pushing plugins down our throat which are not browser core features 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.
- esseph 5mo ago
  > this idea of "browser core features" is, on the face of it, to me, reduction deeply into the absurd. 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.
  - wtallis 5mo ago
    My biggest beef with the browser's unchecked scope creep is that its role as an application platform is fulfilled in a manner that's completely at odds with the original purpose of a browser as a user agent. They're running untrusted third party code by default, letting sites embed spyware, and constantly adding more anti-features. Treating this as normal is insane from an unindoctrinated viewpoint. Acting like people who question this status quo are being unreasonable is an insult to everyone who cares about privacy or security.

ddtaylor 5mo ago

I think it falls more into the category of needing consent like a crypto miner would. If I use a piece of software to do X and it begins using more resources to do Y that can be a serious issue and is at the heart of this discussion.

ezfe 5mo ago
A crypto miner needs consent because it burns your battery and CPU power with no benefit to you. This AI model would only be used when you invoke it so the only problem is disk space, which the comment you're replying to acknowledges as a point of issue.
- J-Kuhn 5mo ago
  Or some website decides for you that you now want to talk to your local AI chatbot using google chrome prompt api. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
- OsrsNeedsf2P 5mo ago
  A crypto miner generates revenue needed to run the service, similar to ads.
- kennywinker 5mo ago
  > This AI model would only be used when you invoke it 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?
  - robinsonb5 5mo ago
    Indeed. Trusting that it will only be processing the user's queries - as opposed to, say, becoming part of a distributed grid of AI processing nodes - isn't a bet I'd be willing to place much money on.
- bigbadfeline 5mo ago

luke727 5mo ago

Where does this line of thinking end? What couldn't be construed as part of the software?

CamperBob2 5mo ago
It ends at the usual place, the shrink-wrap agreement. What did the license agreement say?
- olyjohn 5mo ago
  Nobody knows because its unreasonable to expect people to read them.
- itemize123 5mo ago
  agreements don't always hold up to legal scrutiny. In cases where it is unreasonable, it won't be able to stand up in court. And in any case, this is not a legal matter but a user experience / public opinion one
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    You're right, it's not a legal matter. You and I will readily agree that bundling a 4 GB language model with a Web browser is unreasonable, but how do you envision making that case in court? My guess is that maybe one in 1000 Chrome users will even notice it.
jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
What is the line is a good question. I'm strongly pro-user agency, but I still think consent is more around what actually impacts the user. If there's some safeguards, for exceptional cirumstances that users can get into if they need it, I feel like the software has to be doing more, having more of an impact on you for there to be an offense or problem here. 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.

jchw 5mo ago

It's additional software that many users didn't ask for, don't want and will not be aware of. Reminds me a bit of back when installing software was a minefield due to all of the integrated "promotions" for things like toolbars, only now they've vertically integrated the unwanted software, cutting out the middleman. 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.

kaptainscarlet 5mo ago
An AI is not additional software. Infact, a model is not software.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > a model is not software When does code become software?
- jchw 5mo ago
  How does that change anything? It doesn't matter if you categorize it as software or not, unwanted is unwanted. And frankly I just flatly disagree, you could certainly make the case that model weights are a form of software.
  - dylan604 5mo ago
    If they downloaded a 4GiB media file of some Irish band that nobody asked for, people would be upset as well. It doesn't matter what the 4GiB contains. If it is not going to be used by the user and the user didn't ask for it, that's just idiotic to think people would not be upset about it.

soupspaces 5mo ago

[dead]

picsao 5mo ago

[dead]

ferngodfather 5mo ago

Except spellcheck is a reasonably foreseeable part of a word processor. An AI model isn't really a common component of a typical web browser.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

ljm 5mo ago

In principle I agree, but chrome has an auto-update setup and using that mechanism to download several GBs of data that is not critical to the app itself is cause for question. 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.

Dig1t 5mo ago
>Chrome is not entitled to my disk space just because I installed it 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.
- pocksuppet 5mo ago
  This is a good point, given there is no shortage of alternative browsers, even if there is a relative paucity of alternative browser engines.
- ljm 5mo ago
  It's entitled to what is a reasonable usage of disk space, which you generally know by the size of the installer. Some install mechanisms bypass that because they give you a minimal installer that then downloads the full package. It's not entitled to unlimited usage. 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.

robot-wrangler 5mo ago

If someone puts a camera and a microphone on devices that don't need them, then it's a) pushing up the price of goods for everyone with features that mainly serve corporate, b) there are bad actors out there even if you think corporate is a good one, c) no reason to think corporate is a good actor. 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.

marcosdumay 5mo ago
Shipping the model with the browser is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. The alternative is sending the data to Google.
- _carbyau_ 5mo ago
  Back to the assumptions. 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?
  - blackoil 5mo ago
    Why assume? it should be observable. You can check the code and data traffic to see how it is used.
    - robot-wrangler 5mo ago
      Can't observe the future, so learn from the past.. or use common sense. You don't react to a stranger or a mysterious camera in your household by saying, wow ok, let's see if anything bad happens.

thorum 5mo ago

You’re probably right in a literal technical sense, but a very large number of people (maybe most?) would choose “no” if properly informed and asked for consent, and lots of people are morally opposed even in principle to downloading a large AI model onto their computer. I’m not one of them, but they’re out there. So in a cultural sense, it is different.

xp84 5mo ago
What % of Chrome users (this is the default browser that nearly every 'normal person' uses) do you think is confident (and knowledgeable) enough to answer this quiz: 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 I'd say maybe 5% could get 80% of those right. So, most people would be purely guessing the same way I'd be guessing if you asked me if I want 800mg of Beta-Carotene for $1. I don't know for sure if I need any Beta-Carotene, and if I did need some I wouldn't know if 800mg is a little, just right, or way more than I'd ever need, because I'm not a nutritionist.

eCa 5mo ago

Couldn't the same argument be made for Chrome suddenly including a bitcoin miner? Seems like that would be a difference in degree rather than in kind.

xp84 5mo ago
The difference would be intent. A nearby comment worries that the endgame is the ODM being used to monitor you and report back. Certainly wouldn't put it past the world's biggest ad company to think of that! And if that is what purpose it's put to, I think I'll be mad too. 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.

tremon 5mo ago

Even Microsoft doesn't install a spellcheck dictionary unprompted; that happens when a user/admin goes into the app configuration and changes the language support options.

alliao 5mo ago

i think if google can show that they know what it does and able to contain it then sure, it's a tool they have power over. if not then I don't see how it is being contained by the terms

antonvs 5mo ago

> You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. 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.

roblh 5mo ago

Yeah, no. I installed a browser, I expect it to install the required components for it to work _as a browser_. I do not need a local AI model for it to do that. If there are features that need that, fine, but I expect it to at the very least ask permission since those are absolutely not required functions. It’s like if Word installed a bunch CAD modeling software in the background. There’s just no way it needs that to function for it’s primary purpose.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

knollimar 5mo ago

Framing this as needing "consent" is deeply misguided. It's as silly as claiming that Java installed an ask.com toolbar without your consent. It's just part of the software. You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it.

yallpendantools 5mo ago
wellackshually the bloatware explicitly asked for consent. There was a checkbox at the end of the EULA asking you "I also don't agree to not install the ask.com toolbar. You wouldn't do that, would you?". There is a state of that checkbox which would not install the toolbar, because, as you know, it's not part of the software I'm trying to install. That state, however, is left as an exercise for the decompiler. :) 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.
- knollimar 5mo ago
  I thought the issue with Java was that checkmark would check itself on update? I was trying to draw that parallel but maybe I'm misremembering
  - xxs 5mo ago
    that's not true. ask.com nonsese did ask consent and it was trivial to uninstall.

ajkjk 5mo ago

Can't stand this kind of corporate apologism. It's one thing to disagree about whether this is a reasonable thing to do, but there's no need to additionally gaslight people about whether their category of grievance is even valid. Of course it's consent. They did it, without consent, that is a simple and factual statement. You consented to one thing (a browser) and not another (a giant AI file). And then the question with consent is whether the thing is something a person ought to seek consent for, which is entirely relative to how the person will feel about it. Installing a dictionary, probably not because it's small. Installing a 4GB file, probably yes. Obviously.

grayhatter 5mo ago

> Framing it around consent is unnecessarily inflammatory and makes it harder to have a discussion, not easier. 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.

BizarroLand 5mo ago
Exactly this. My issue with Microslop isn't that they're using AI, that is its own can of worms. 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.
ToValueFunfetti 5mo ago
I don't think this is a question of framing or ignoring problematic behavior at all. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't find it anywhere near comparably egregious if Google added a new developer option without your consent- the most significant problem is the 4GB and the LLM. And, of course, you did consent to their software terms. You are free to switch browsers. What does consent have to do with this?
- pasquinelli 5mo ago
  yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has value.
  - Zetaphor 5mo ago

munk-a 5mo ago

If Rockstar games can be criticized for Hot Coffee then Chrome can absolutely be criticized for such bloat ware.

llbbdd 5mo ago
That was also stupid
iammattmurphy 5mo ago
TIL, what a nutty situation.
Griffinsauce 5mo ago
Invoking a different case with bad logic doesn't make this one any stronger. I never understand this impulse, is it just "nuh uh!"?

titzer 5mo ago

> It's just part of the software. 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.

stevenally 5mo ago

They are abusing our trust. That's the issue.

oriettaxx 5mo ago
not just that, unfortunately 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-xai-give-us-access-to-ai-models-for-security-testing https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/5/5/microsoft-google-...

foxes 5mo ago

Disagree 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.

nobodyandproud 5mo ago

Disagree. By your framing, might as well add a 4 Gb LLM to grep as an unasked for and downloaded option.

abubakir1997 5mo ago

Its not misleading, AI models (unlike English spelling check) has the potential to mine data on users and invade privacy all under the name of "training the model". I am very skeptical of AI models. Governments and big corp have the ability to exploit AI models and none of them a righteous for us to feel safe from a move like that.

zachrip 5mo ago
Local models exist as part of the solution to privacy invasion. Not saying google has never been nefarious, but the whole point of local models is that your data doesn't leave your device.
- mr_machine 5mo ago
  Pretty sure from Google's standpoint, respecting privacy is a downside of local models. For them, the upside is using your compute rather than theirs.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

jasonfarnon 5mo ago

No, what's misguided is equating the legal definition of consent ("It's in the ToS") with actual consent. When everyone (especially google) knows 99% of users don't read the ToS. Can they sue over it in a court of law? Maybe, maybe not. But they can write articles, spread the word and generate bad press for google. Then maybe consent will be actual rather than constructive.

pasquinelli 5mo ago

i wonder how exactly it makes it harder to have a discussion. would it be okay to talk about spyware in terms of consent, or would that make it harder to discuss as well? can you think of a situation that it wouldn't be unhelpful to frame what software does in terms of consent?

Razengan 5mo ago

Hey if people could go for their pitchforks and torches over Apple giving them a free U2 album that ate up limited device storage space, 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/ 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://hn.algolia.com/?q=Anthropic+spyware

ascorbic 5mo ago
That was an even more ridiculous post. It wasn't spyware, it was a messaging bridge being installed for exactly the purpose it was intended. It was Claude Desktop installing a bridge that would allow Claude browser plugins to communicate with it. It was only used if the user had installed the browser plugin, and all it did was grant that plugin access to the app that had installed it!
- account42 5mo ago
  So it's a backdoor to bypass the browser sandbox. Spyware is an apt label for that.
  - ascorbic 5mo ago
    It's not a backdoor: it's using a feature for the purpose for which it was designed. It's not granting plugins access to anything except itself
    - Razengan 5mo ago
      It's the sheer gall of doing shit like that on my system without asking me. Creating a shitload of files to modify the settings of OTHER apps, wtaf? I asked Codex to look into it: https://i.imgur.com/lvOjR0x.png https://i.imgur.com/lvOjR0x.png

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

"You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it." Were the terms something like https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/chromium/+/refs/heads/main/chrome/app/resources/terms/terms_en.html 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/ 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-resources/lawful-basis/consent/how-should-we-obtain-record-and-manage-consent/ 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/edpb_guidelines_202005_consent_en.pdf 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 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

exabrial 5mo ago

please don't defend this anymore. People installed an html client, not a backdoor into their computer.

_karie_ 5mo ago
Incorrect. Adding LLMs in the browser IS the backdoor into your computer.

iberator 5mo ago

hey i found google ceo here!

gessha 5mo ago

News from the year 2030: Google takes your credit card info, sells it on the black market for pennies and kicks you in the groin. 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.

wavemode 5mo ago
You're arguing in bad faith.
- gessha 5mo ago
  It’s not in bad faith, it’s reductio as absurdum. Installation is not consent.

itemize123 5mo ago

you are being very disingenuous. there are certain expectations from a software vendor. taking things into extreme, if something install malware as an update on your computer, is it not a silly claim that it is free for vendor to do so?

lynx97 5mo ago

I disagree. Its a browser, damnit. Framing it as non-consentual AI is the right way. BTW, how much does Google pay you for this comment?

zelon88 5mo ago

> It's just part of the software. You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it. 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?

laserbeam 5mo ago

That's like saying users have no right to push against certain features. It's like saying Windows Recall was always ok and there was never any reason to demand it not be installed. The only difference is one can choose to use a different browser easier than they can choose a different OS. 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.

account42 5mo ago
> The only difference is one can choose to use a different browser easier than they can choose a different OS. 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.
- Zetaphor 5mo ago
  Changing the browser is an order of magnitude less friction than changing browsers. The UX in every browser is essentially the same, that's not the case between Windows, Mac, and the various DE's on Linux

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

0x49d1 5mo ago

But then they should state that minimum size of Chrome is 5-6GB (lol, OS size). Sure this feature should be installed by informing the user what are the pros/cons; just installing without asking - means that you are using user's traffic (huge for mobile, for example) and disk (quite a large part) without notice, which is probably a bit shady.

user3939382 5mo ago

So… every software package you’ve installed has the right to consume an unlimited amount of your system’s resources? It’s an absurd argument. By that logic it can fill your hard drive, RAM, and max out your network bandwidth and the user would have somehow agreed.

Under the EU AI act this REQUIRES disclosure. The user should be informed that the system is installing an LLM

ZetsuBouKyo 5mo ago

I agree to install it, but I don’t agree to automatic updates. The bigger problem is, I can hardly find where to disable Google’s automatic updates. In the end, I just locked the file permissions to stop that virus-like auto-update program from running.

ascorbic 5mo ago
Auto-updating browsers is one of the best advances in the web dev space in the past decade. I find it hard to believe that anyone who did web development before evergreen browsers became a thing would ever disagree.
- account42 5mo ago
  Best advances for whom? Lazy web developers? 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.
  - ascorbic 5mo ago
    Web developers, users who want don't want security issues in their browser, and anyone who wants consistent rendering of sites
    - wtallis 5mo ago
      > and anyone who wants consistent rendering of sites 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.
- 5mo ago

circuit10 5mo ago

I think the disk space and bandwidth are what make consent needed, because it’s implied that the browser may download small pieces of data but the user would not expect such a large file be downloaded so it should check with them

account42 5mo ago

This kind of unwanted software installed with a product you want used to be clearly considered malware. But these days software companies all think they own your computer and can do whatever they want.

gamerslexus 5mo ago

Chrome's model is based on copyright infringement and court cases are pending regarding legality. Even if spellcheck dictionary was 4 GB, installing bloated but legal software is different.

cataflutter 5mo ago

Disagreed; it's not a download you'd expect and it's also at least an order or two of magnitude than you'd expect to find reasonable for browsing a page. 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.

abc123abc123 5mo ago

Incorrect. What you consent to, is the software, with its intended use and design. It is not consent to allowing the vendor to install what ever software, for what ever use case, of infinite size, forever. With your interpretation, MS could install a torrent client, child porn or what ever, and that cleraly shows that your interpretation leads to a reductio ad absurdum. 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.

crazygringo 5mo ago
> 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.

derfurth 5mo ago

Yes plus there is lot of confusion; the author is citing ePrivacy and GDPR that are about PIIs, not at all about consenting to an install.

eeixlk 5mo ago

When you decide to build autoupdate features into your product, in some way you are building trust that you wont break expectations with your users. If google wants to pull a microsoft and try to force me to use another of their products I dont want to use, they are welcome to die in the same way as IE did.

ccvannorman 5mo ago

[dead]

monegator 5mo ago

Let's say i give zero fucks about gemini and "AI" in general, or in any case am not using google's offering. 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)

RobRivera 5mo ago

Framing another person's opinion as silly is silly

williamkemi 5mo ago

I have a 256 gb m1 mac. It's enough, but I uninstall apps and delete files ruthlessly when I don't need them and space is filling up. 4 GB of data which I don't want and didn't had in mind 2021 when I bought my computer is a big deal. Perhaps I should upgrade, maybe I'm behind and slow to do so, maybe 256 GB was a bad idea from the start. Maybe, but it has worked for 5 years and I don't have an urgent need to upgrade for any reason. For me 4 GB of something I would actively go and delete, just for it to be downloaded again and again is perhaps not non-consensual but absolutely disrespectful

bixxie09 5mo ago

[dead]

jesterson 5mo ago

Back in days this approach in software was called trojan horse and considered as malware

neoyagami 5mo ago

Its like when itunes for windows installed safari silently :/

scrubs 5mo ago

Misguided? 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.

impalallama 5mo ago

You could use the argument to justify installing functionally anything. From a key logger sending over everything you type to a crypto miner mining exclusively for google. I download a browser to browse the web. An AI agent is something else.

Scrutiny6707 5mo ago

It's your computer, and anything arriving on it needs to be done by your consent. 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.