5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
    Yeah, I came up with BBS and being amazed at watching us connect & grow capabilities, in ways that anyone could easily use. That was and is incredible & amazing. I struggle to see what reached out & touched you, has you (from my perspective) so shook & anti- willing! I can't imagine not seeing the hope & awesomeness!! I agree: we do have very different backgrounds, it seems like! There's libraries, still: big buildings with books on them, if you want to go browse static dead information that sits there! You can even check out books on your phone now; thanks Libby app! Your use case is already super well fulfilled! Has been for a long time! You can go do that! It's absurd to me how conservative & constraining some people want the world to be. A reduction of possibility, that itself feels absurd, taken to even more absurd anti existence, anti possibility. There's been no platform on earth where it's so easy to make cool neat software and experiences for yourself & friends, where we can do so much. From a static website! That power is incredible. That power had been locked away forever and somehow it became very easy, yet still reasonably sandboxed, and is available to all, so easily: and that's nothing short of a miracle. And as ever it's always the same! The same shit! "The story so far: after packaged software, the web was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Just go use a browser that works for you, and stop trying to ensnare the whole world in your very limited very constrained narrow view of expectations/desires. Don't expect the universe to reduce itself to your level! Especially because: the web will let you have the browser you want! There's other media-forms that are everywhere that are even more set, as per your desires! But man, to moralize & outrage against those who don't want the web to be but a book that's online? I don't sympathize at all, and I don't understand the basis where this comes from, and I so strongly feel there's been way way way too much of this frankly bad attitude; I think this is very broadly a popular anti-sentiment to whinge over, that is far too over-expressed. And it's so small, so limiting a world, that's so unclear & so unexplained. The world wide web doesn't need to fit in such a tiny box. This is human capability, that increasingly is the means open to all, for the Dream Machines to be made with, for intergalactic internets to connect people with. Sure! A lot of that hasn't gone great, we don't like what has been built! But it's always seemed so clear and so obvious to me that this democratic access to platform, available on any device, that let's us do so much, is a fragile sacred thing. And that taking that away is to give up all hope of ever having systems that are good for us.
syndeo 5mo ago
It’s actually really useful for web devs to have access to a local model. Whether or not browsers should bundle their own rather than using the system-provided model(s) is up for debate, however. For the time being, though, Google does have some of the better small ones. Furthermore, users aren’t going to want to have to wait for an extra thing to download before their web apps can use AI. That’s the thing… Without context of why, users probably wouldn’t want a 4 GB download. But they do want their web apps to work properly. When there’s a specific use case they’re interested in, they will want to have it, and they won’t want to wait.
- wtallis 5mo ago
  You haven't even tried to provide a hypothetical example of what a web app should try to do using a local LLM, nor addressed the obvious questions about how that kind of thing should be standardized, what level of local LLM capability is reasonable for a web app to expect, or how permissions for that should be managed given that a local LLM is not just a tax on local storage capacity. So why should anyone take it as a foregone conclusion that this is an instance where web devs should get what they want? In general, the browser should be acting in the best interests of the user and not automatically granting the wishes of every web site that wants to drain your battery.
  - llbbdd 5mo ago
    There is a link elsewhere in this comment tree addressing all of that: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
    - wtallis 5mo ago
      Google's marketing for their latest new browser feature nobody asked for shouldn't be taken at face value. Somebody outside Google needs to provide a well-reasoned assessment of the feature proposal. And having skimmed that page, it really doesn't answer most of the important questions. Are other browsers expected to ship Google's model, or put a different model behind the API that Google has documented as being specifically for Gemini Nano?
hackyhacky 5mo ago
> I wanted/consented to a browser. Nothing more. I agree. I want just a browser. No non-browser-related features, such as JavaScript, CSS, WebRTC, WebGPU, Wasm, etc. Nope, just browsing. Edit: /s, obviously
- dylan604 5mo ago
  That's a dumb argument to make as all of those things are used to render the browsing experience. You can disagree with them being necessary or not, but they are part of the experience. You'd be much better off arguing you wanted/consented to a browser, but you got 3 toolbars installed as well and a couple of extensions that report back every keystroke to their respective mothership.
  - hackyhacky 5mo ago
    I think you missed my sarcasm. Sorry if I was being too subtle. My intent was to point out that "just a browser" is a meaningless phrase as the functionality of browsers changes.
    - dylan604 5mo ago
      Yup, I did. I read it as an HTML purist that thinks all of that stuff is ruining the web never leaving Reader mode pining for the days of Gopher
- ThrowawayR2 5mo ago
  A better example of a non-browser feature that crept into browsers would be PDF viewing.
montroser 5mo ago
Welcome to 2026, in which a browser is an operating system!
- account42 5mo ago
  OS bloat is no less of a problem.
  - titzer 5mo ago
    36GB Tahoe update and all I got was these rounded corners.

by oaiey 5mo ago

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.
- jauntywundrkind 5mo ago
  Yeah, I came up with BBS and being amazed at watching us connect & grow capabilities, in ways that anyone could easily use. That was and is incredible & amazing. I struggle to see what reached out & touched you, has you (from my perspective) so shook & anti- willing! I can't imagine not seeing the hope & awesomeness!! I agree: we do have very different backgrounds, it seems like! There's libraries, still: big buildings with books on them, if you want to go browse static dead information that sits there! You can even check out books on your phone now; thanks Libby app! Your use case is already super well fulfilled! Has been for a long time! You can go do that! It's absurd to me how conservative & constraining some people want the world to be. A reduction of possibility, that itself feels absurd, taken to even more absurd anti existence, anti possibility. There's been no platform on earth where it's so easy to make cool neat software and experiences for yourself & friends, where we can do so much. From a static website! That power is incredible. That power had been locked away forever and somehow it became very easy, yet still reasonably sandboxed, and is available to all, so easily: and that's nothing short of a miracle. And as ever it's always the same! The same shit! "The story so far: after packaged software, the web was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Just go use a browser that works for you, and stop trying to ensnare the whole world in your very limited very constrained narrow view of expectations/desires. Don't expect the universe to reduce itself to your level! Especially because: the web will let you have the browser you want! There's other media-forms that are everywhere that are even more set, as per your desires! But man, to moralize & outrage against those who don't want the web to be but a book that's online? I don't sympathize at all, and I don't understand the basis where this comes from, and I so strongly feel there's been way way way too much of this frankly bad attitude; I think this is very broadly a popular anti-sentiment to whinge over, that is far too over-expressed. And it's so small, so limiting a world, that's so unclear & so unexplained. The world wide web doesn't need to fit in such a tiny box. This is human capability, that increasingly is the means open to all, for the Dream Machines to be made with, for intergalactic internets to connect people with. Sure! A lot of that hasn't gone great, we don't like what has been built! But it's always seemed so clear and so obvious to me that this democratic access to platform, available on any device, that let's us do so much, is a fragile sacred thing. And that taking that away is to give up all hope of ever having systems that are good for us.

syndeo 5mo ago

It’s actually really useful for web devs to have access to a local model. Whether or not browsers should bundle their own rather than using the system-provided model(s) is up for debate, however. For the time being, though, Google does have some of the better small ones. Furthermore, users aren’t going to want to have to wait for an extra thing to download before their web apps can use AI. That’s the thing… Without context of why, users probably wouldn’t want a 4 GB download. But they do want their web apps to work properly. When there’s a specific use case they’re interested in, they will want to have it, and they won’t want to wait.

wtallis 5mo ago
You haven't even tried to provide a hypothetical example of what a web app should try to do using a local LLM, nor addressed the obvious questions about how that kind of thing should be standardized, what level of local LLM capability is reasonable for a web app to expect, or how permissions for that should be managed given that a local LLM is not just a tax on local storage capacity. So why should anyone take it as a foregone conclusion that this is an instance where web devs should get what they want? In general, the browser should be acting in the best interests of the user and not automatically granting the wishes of every web site that wants to drain your battery.
- llbbdd 5mo ago
  There is a link elsewhere in this comment tree addressing all of that: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api
  - wtallis 5mo ago
    Google's marketing for their latest new browser feature nobody asked for shouldn't be taken at face value. Somebody outside Google needs to provide a well-reasoned assessment of the feature proposal. And having skimmed that page, it really doesn't answer most of the important questions. Are other browsers expected to ship Google's model, or put a different model behind the API that Google has documented as being specifically for Gemini Nano?

hackyhacky 5mo ago

> I wanted/consented to a browser. Nothing more. I agree. I want just a browser. No non-browser-related features, such as JavaScript, CSS, WebRTC, WebGPU, Wasm, etc. Nope, just browsing. Edit: /s, obviously

dylan604 5mo ago
That's a dumb argument to make as all of those things are used to render the browsing experience. You can disagree with them being necessary or not, but they are part of the experience. You'd be much better off arguing you wanted/consented to a browser, but you got 3 toolbars installed as well and a couple of extensions that report back every keystroke to their respective mothership.
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  I think you missed my sarcasm. Sorry if I was being too subtle. My intent was to point out that "just a browser" is a meaningless phrase as the functionality of browsers changes.
  - dylan604 5mo ago
    Yup, I did. I read it as an HTML purist that thinks all of that stuff is ruining the web never leaving Reader mode pining for the days of Gopher
ThrowawayR2 5mo ago
A better example of a non-browser feature that crept into browsers would be PDF viewing.

montroser 5mo ago

Welcome to 2026, in which a browser is an operating system!

account42 5mo ago
OS bloat is no less of a problem.
- titzer 5mo ago
  36GB Tahoe update and all I got was these rounded corners.