Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 261 posts

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#101

Post by StilesCrisis »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #78
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Because some things only work in Chrome. What things? Looks like an urban myth.

I'm aware of a few things, myself: 1) Google properties 1a) Chromecast 2) a few web-based games that were really pushing the envelope on web APIs and didn't bother testing on Firefox 3) WebUSB, commonly used for some things like keyboard customization apps

Which Google properties are Chrome only? I'm not doubting you but the major ones (search, mail, maps, ads) are extremely cross-platform.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#102

Post by ProllyInfamous »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #73

It seems to me that adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people who, for the most part, would be completely unaware it's even happening. Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.

The even more frustrating thing here is that after auto-updates everything new [including AI "features"] is turned ON by default.

I do like how Firefox now has a "prevent future AI integrations" checkbox[0], but I just don't believe it anymore (i.e. that it won't magically `uncheck` itself and then enable features I've not requested/authorized).

Which is why I just used an LLM to help me create a local network admin rule to disable the update engine entirely (this SHOULD. NOT. BE. NECESSARY).

[•] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/b0d3bf5d-7ac7-4d4c-b6c6-32b...>

[0] with a sick darkpattern (for most users to laregly ignore)

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#103

Post by nmeagent »

tcp_handshaker wrote: post #57
e40 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some things only work in Chrome. It's a fact. It's terrible. We're the frogs being boiled, over the last decade. People sounded the alarms, but they were looked at like they had tin foil on their heads. Now, it's clear they were right. I'm speaking generally, of course. I use Firefox for all my personal stuff, except for those situations where it doesn't work.

>> Because some things only work in Chrome. What things? Looks like an urban myth.

I've run into a few restaurant sites whose ordering pages just do not work properly (or at all) in Firefox. Also webgl2 performance is unfortunately still much better in Chrome vs Firefox; as an example, FoundryVTT (virtual tabletop software) works fine in Firefox but is a stuttery mess IME (though it has improved slightly in the last few years).

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#104

Post by StilesCrisis »

input_sh wrote: post #76
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Because some things only work in Chrome. What things? Looks like an urban myth.

Chrome likes to make up new "standards" and then some websites adopt them immediately. That said, I can only remember two instances of that slightly inconveniencing me in the past, and both times I was inconvenienced by a Google-run website: once upon a time Google Earth refused to work, and once upon a time I couldn't tweak my Google Meet background. Both are no longer the case.

Citation needed. I've seen the opposite--unless there's a very specific niche that can't be otherwise solved, there's huge internal resistance to going it alone.

The biggest counterexample I can think of: WebUSB was critical to Chromebooks supporting external devices, but I can see why Safari might not want it. It has Firefox support at last, though.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#105

Post by GeekyBear »

plopz wrote: post #24
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #11

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

Brave started off incredibly sketchy and with terrible reputation, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat.

> Brave started off incredibly sketchy

Chrome has stayed incredibly sketchy from the beginning, when Google gained marketshare by sneaking Chrome into the installer for other products that people intentionally downloaded.

Then Chrome did things like "accidentally" uploading your entire browsing history to Google servers when you signed into Gmail.

Now they have declared war on ad blockers, despite the government warning that ad networks are too big a malware vector to ignore.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#106

Post by robhlt »

wafflemaker wrote: post #87
robhlt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.

https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#how-does-adnause... You seem more knowledgeable in how browsers and js work than me. Does the below text still mean that AdNausem is downloading and running all the advertising JS? Here's what's in the link: >AdNauseam 'clicks' Ads by issuing an HTTP request to the URL to which they lead. In current versions this is done via an XMLHttpRequest (or AJAX request) issued in a b…

Basically zero ads are just static images with a link, they're dynamically loaded by JS when you open the page. The JS collects as much tracking data about you as it can, sends that off to the ad network servers which run a live auction to determine who will pay the most to show an ad to you right now, then returns that ad for the JS to display.

AdNauseam not loading the response to the "click" request makes it trivially easy to flag as fraudulent, because a real click would load and run the response.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#107

Post by StilesCrisis »

mrguyorama wrote: post #69
amatecha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just surprised people use Chrome at all. Google has proven over and over they can't be trusted and will exploit you every chance they get.

95% of people who use Chrome have no clue what browser they are using. They got Chrome when it was bundled with every single installer ever for about a decade (which was so prolific and scummy that Microsoft had to make the "default app" picker system more defensive , because Chrome was abusing it more than microsoft apps were). When you installed Java, you also got Chrome set as your default browser with no interact…

Why would people still be using a computer from 2010? That might have made sense in 2015, but beggars belief in 2026.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#108

Post by GeekyBear »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #73

It seems to me that adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people who, for the most part, would be completely unaware it's even happening. Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.

> adding AI to desktop apps and sending the data back to the mothership for processing is an amazing way to collect data from people

Wasn't that the entire point of Windows Recall as well?

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#109

Post by nelsonic »

plopz wrote: post #24
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #11

I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years.

Brave started off incredibly sketchy and with terrible reputation, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat.

Brave is my default browser for non-sensitive tasks; e.g. most web browsing, GitHub, news, etc. The built-in ad-blocker & tracker blocker alone is worth it. Use chrome for testing. Stock Firefox for anything sensitive.

Re: Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers

#110

Post by robhlt »

tardedmeme wrote: post #81
robhlt wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "clicks" are likely identified as fraudulent and dropped by the ad network. So you still pay the cost of downloading and running all the advertising JS and you still get tracked by the ad networks, all for nothing.

What metrics does the ad network use to identify the clicks as "fraudulent"?

The same metrics any site uses to identify bot behavior. It's a closely guarded secret because if the attackers knew what metrics they used the attackers would know how to not get caught.

Another reply pointed out that AdNauseam just makes an http request to simulate a "click" and throws away the response. A real click would load and execute the response so it's trivially easy for ad networks to detect AdNauseam "clicks".

Post reply on HN