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

191–200 of 261 posts

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

#191

Post by martin-t »

lovich wrote: post #182
2ndorderthought wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't actually show you who said what though. Twitter trialed that feature then they quickly turned it off after everyone realized half of the maga influencers were russians. It also kind of stinks because not every mistake should be immortalized and recorded forever. Blackmail and all that. It kind of ruins the internet in a different way.

I want it enforced at a governmental level. I don’t think content consumed by people should be required to be public but if you want to post on a public square that the internet is, I should be able to recognize you as well I could in meatspace. We get all the negatives of anonymity now with foreign actors, domestic actors, and bots flooding the zone with lies, and not of the benefits since all the corporations and g…

I assure you they cannot pierce that veil if one has a modicum of competence.

One uni in my country has been getting bomb threats during the exam period every year for multiple years (a random article says 20 times at least). The whole place gets evacuated each time, nothing is found and nobody is caught.

But people who think they're anonymous because they used a different nick? Yeah, those are idiots, their ISP and the platform knows who they are and anybody can deanonymize them through stylometry.

I don't think surveillance is the solution though. I'd much rather see a network of trust or (second best) anonymous proof of identity.

Any place selling alcohol or cigarettes is able to check if you're 18. They could just as easily check your nationality by looking at your ID and give you a crypto key which can be used to prove that to online platforms without revealing who you are.

But there's no money for big corps in that and most people are not even smart enough to think of it.

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

#192

Post by orthecreedence »

kevcampb wrote: post #138

This seems somewhat specious - it's also quite possible that they just altered the wording to make it less verbose. Does anyone have access to the link "Learn more about on-device AI"? If Chrome starts sending data from the browser back to Google, that's going to be a huge compliance issue. If you work for a company that processes customer data in the browser, you're going to need to ban Chrome.

Yeah, I staunchly refuse to believe an ad company that releases a closed-source browser would violate our privacy. You're probably right that they changed the claim simply because it was too verbose. That's the best and only explanation.

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

#193

Post by orthecreedence »

varispeed wrote: post #167

Surely this would be illegal? Personal data without consent? Or is it a case of too big too fail. Seems like running governments' infrastructure pays off. No regulator will dare to impose a fine that could collapse the company. But this is very much needed. £100bn fine and confiscation of assets in the given country could be a start.

> Surely this would be illegal? Personal data without consent?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but have you been frozen in ice for the last 20 years? This is effectively the tech industry's raison d'etre.

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

#194

Post by martin-t »

cferry wrote: post #96

My belief is that the AI business is all about data collection. The value isn't so much in the quality of the models (that's what enterprise customers and developers pay to get), but in the amount of data that comes "for free" to whoever hosts the models. And then it's worth whoever buys it thinks it is, like insurers or advertisers.

Up until ~2 weeks ago, I believed that at least opting out of data collection would protect me. I no longer do.

Everyone knows that fines paid by companies (instead of the people making the decisions) are considered simply a cost of doing business. A probabilistic tax, if you will.

What finally dawned on me is that given they need more and more data to train bigger and bigger models, at some point the value of using my data for training will exceed the cost of getting caught using it without/against my consent.

There's no escape unless we change the law.

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

#195

Post by martin-t »

naruhodo wrote: post #181
cferry wrote: post #96

My belief is that the AI business is all about data collection. The value isn't so much in the quality of the models (that's what enterprise customers and developers pay to get), but in the amount of data that comes "for free" to whoever hosts the models. And then it's worth whoever buys it thinks it is, like insurers or advertisers.

When you use a coding model running on someone else's computer, you're giving an AI company your proprietary source code and associated documentation, and you're giving free training examples to make a future AI model better equipped to eliminate your job. Valuable data indeed.

Exactly. This is what people don't seem to get. LLMs ("AI") are not a tool for us. They are a tool for the owner class and a replacement for us.

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

#196

Post by lovich »

martin-t wrote: post #191
lovich wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want it enforced at a governmental level. I don’t think content consumed by people should be required to be public but if you want to post on a public square that the internet is, I should be able to recognize you as well I could in meatspace. We get all the negatives of anonymity now with foreign actors, domestic actors, and bots flooding the zone with lies, and not of the benefits since all the corporations and g…

I assure you they cannot pierce that veil if one has a modicum of competence. One uni in my country has been getting bomb threats during the exam period every year for multiple years (a random article says 20 times at least). The whole place gets evacuated each time, nothing is found and nobody is caught. But people who think they're anonymous because they used a different nick? Yeah, those are idiots, their ISP and…

Every single packet of information sent on the internet flows through NSA servers at some point. We've known this since Snowden. When I say the government has this information I do not mean that every single bureaucrat at any level of government can access this, but that the government as a whole has access to the information if they feel its worth using. We have limitations on how the government uses such powers but those are currently worth the paper they are written on and being ripped up left and right.

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

#197

Post by Barbing »

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.

Many around the world search in Facebook and only browse via its in-app browser (sometimes zero-rated / free).

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

#198

Post by rolymath »

g8oz wrote: post #65
rolymath wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave is has pre-configured as block that works on everything, also a polished sync experience.

Vivaldi's sync experience is nice as well. Top notch customization too.

I started with Vivaldi. Was unstable in my experience. Constant crashes.

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

#199

Post by martin-t »

lovich wrote: post #196
martin-t wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you they cannot pierce that veil if one has a modicum of competence. One uni in my country has been getting bomb threats during the exam period every year for multiple years (a random article says 20 times at least). The whole place gets evacuated each time, nothing is found and nobody is caught. But people who think they're anonymous because they used a different nick? Yeah, those are idiots, their ISP and…

Every single packet of information sent on the internet flows through NSA servers at some point. We've known this since Snowden. When I say the government has this information I do not mean that every single bureaucrat at any level of government can access this, but that the government as a whole has access to the information if they feel its worth using. We have limitations on how the government uses such powers but…

That's defeatist, although certainly what they'd like. The world is not the US.

Even if NSA captured and logged all internet traffic, they'd still only get a fraction of the information within without breaking all the encryption.

And even if they could break the crypto, the ability would only have any power if/when they acted on it. Which in turns reveals the capability to both normal people and other nation states.

The limitations aren't laws, it's the practical consequences.

Of course, having laws with actual teeth helps.

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

#200

Post by popcorncowboy »

This "just keep leaning into the outrage machine" is a terrifyingly effective strategy. I realize lobbying groups have had the "we only need to slip past once" strategy forever, but it feels to me like there's a new level of bare-faced autocratic, anti-social-contract power grab going on in a way that wasn't around 20 years ago.

You see it in our political class. Egregious thing? Nah, try this? Oh you're whining now? Here's some more. Look over here. What about this? Moar gnashing! And now this. Oh you don't like it? Clearly you hate children and freedom and family because this is all and only about protecting the children and saving everyone from rapists, Russians and whatever else the zeitgeist is afraid of.

Post reply on HN