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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

please don't defend this anymore.

People installed an html client, not a backdoor into their computer.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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/

but discussion about that seems to have been suppressed on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Anthropic+spyware

> 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.

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?

hey i found google ceo here!

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

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?

"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/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/

"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-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/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

"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

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.

[dead]

[dead]

You're missing that this is anti-AI activism