Google Chrome is downloading a 4 GB Gemini Nano model onto users' machines without consent, with no opt-in, no opt-out short of enterprise tooling, and an automatic re-download every time the user deletes it. The pattern is identical to the Anthropic Claude Desktop case I wrote about last month, but the scale is between two and three orders of magnitude larger. This article does the legal analysis and, for the first time, the environmental analysis. The numbers are not small.
The article, as usual, makes no comparison to the environmental impact of companies like McDonalds (who use PER DAY what every AI data centre combined in the world uses PER YEAR, not companies like Shell or BP who are orders of magnitude worse than that. This is the usual anti-ai fear-mongering bollocks.
Should Google have installed it unasked? No, that’s bullshit, possibly illegal bullshit but honestly considering how disingenuous the environmental impact is I can’t trust the legal stuff that I don’t know about either. But it is not an environmental catastrophe as whoever wrote this article would like you to believe for some reason.
Honest question: why are the haters pushing their nonsense? What do they have to gain?
edit: As usually the haters and useful idiots provide nonsense counterpoints and downvote because they don’t have laugh reacts to demonstrate their groupthink and wilful ignorance. I really wish they’d all shut the hell up, they’re annoying!
Also great to know you don’t have to pay to get storage in your devices, otherwise you’d be quite unhappy to see it taken out of your control for no feature (Chrome still relies on cloud services for most AI features).
I don’t even know what you’re getting at here. You claim my comment, which points out how disingenuous the article is, is whataboutism, then provide some whataboutism.
Article talk about pushing a large model on people’s computer. You minimize this by going about McDonalds, Shell, BP. Do you even know what “whataboutism” mean? Your first sentence is “what about McDonald, Shell, BP”.
I’m calling out how stupidly and obviously disingenuous the article is. That’s not whataboutism. Do you know what disingenuous means? The article claims it has a huge environmental impact. It doesn’t.
Are they hating, or are they pointing out that companies that claim to be honestly working towards a “greener” end are adding unwanted and unnecessary code to users computers against their will. Code, BTW, that can not be removed permanently and adds not only the cost of the bandwidth of the download used, but also the general cost of the cloud-backed nature of it’s functioning to the mix. As someone that doesn’t use Chrome or the cloud, I’d be furious… The Keystone Agent (a perniciously rotten bit of code that eats clock cycles in one’s system and runs constantly in the background) that chrome updates with - it’s exactly why I quit the browser years ago.
Dunno why you’re so butthurt over the fact that beyond the environmental claims, the issue of code being deployed into someone’s system without their permission or any ability to halt or prevent it means less to you than the former point.
Do you work for google? 'Cos damn dude, you’re coming down on this like you do.
Can I send you this month’s electric bill to split the difference off of?
I have maintained a rigorous control on our home power useage for years and in spite of this, the bill has increased roughly 52% in the last year - and it’s aparently down to the increased demand that needs to be supplemented by purchasing power from outside of our region because of data centers.
If you love it so much… How about YOU pay the extra cost for those of us who did not ask for, and do not need, it.
It’s all part of the same thing… offloading burdens from the provider - be it a data center or google, onto the user, without permission.
No. It’s risen because corporate execs think they can gouge you for money to increase the high scores in their bank accounts. Increased demand means they’d be selling more which would mean more profits or even your bills decreasing if they were being fair. As usual it’s corps and billionaires that are the problem
The article, as usual, makes no comparison to the environmental impact of companies like McDonalds (who use PER DAY what every AI data centre combined in the world uses PER YEAR, not companies like Shell or BP who are orders of magnitude worse than that. This is the usual anti-ai fear-mongering bollocks.
Should Google have installed it unasked? No, that’s bullshit, possibly illegal bullshit but honestly considering how disingenuous the environmental impact is I can’t trust the legal stuff that I don’t know about either. But it is not an environmental catastrophe as whoever wrote this article would like you to believe for some reason.
Honest question: why are the haters pushing their nonsense? What do they have to gain?
edit: As usually the haters and useful idiots provide nonsense counterpoints and downvote because they don’t have laugh reacts to demonstrate their groupthink and wilful ignorance. I really wish they’d all shut the hell up, they’re annoying!
Oh, some whataboutism. Great.
Also great to know you don’t have to pay to get storage in your devices, otherwise you’d be quite unhappy to see it taken out of your control for no feature (Chrome still relies on cloud services for most AI features).
I don’t even know what you’re getting at here. You claim my comment, which points out how disingenuous the article is, is whataboutism, then provide some whataboutism.
Article talk about pushing a large model on people’s computer. You minimize this by going about McDonalds, Shell, BP. Do you even know what “whataboutism” mean? Your first sentence is “what about McDonald, Shell, BP”.
I’m calling out how stupidly and obviously disingenuous the article is. That’s not whataboutism. Do you know what disingenuous means? The article claims it has a huge environmental impact. It doesn’t.
Are they hating, or are they pointing out that companies that claim to be honestly working towards a “greener” end are adding unwanted and unnecessary code to users computers against their will. Code, BTW, that can not be removed permanently and adds not only the cost of the bandwidth of the download used, but also the general cost of the cloud-backed nature of it’s functioning to the mix. As someone that doesn’t use Chrome or the cloud, I’d be furious… The Keystone Agent (a perniciously rotten bit of code that eats clock cycles in one’s system and runs constantly in the background) that chrome updates with - it’s exactly why I quit the browser years ago.
Nuts to that.
Chrome sucks, sure. Did you have a coherent point beyond that? No, didn’t think so.
You asked… I answered.
Dunno why you’re so butthurt over the fact that beyond the environmental claims, the issue of code being deployed into someone’s system without their permission or any ability to halt or prevent it means less to you than the former point.
Do you work for google? 'Cos damn dude, you’re coming down on this like you do.
The environmental impact of AI is massively overblown all the fucking time and I don’t like lies. And I do like AI
Can I send you this month’s electric bill to split the difference off of?
I have maintained a rigorous control on our home power useage for years and in spite of this, the bill has increased roughly 52% in the last year - and it’s aparently down to the increased demand that needs to be supplemented by purchasing power from outside of our region because of data centers.
If you love it so much… How about YOU pay the extra cost for those of us who did not ask for, and do not need, it.
It’s all part of the same thing… offloading burdens from the provider - be it a data center or google, onto the user, without permission.
No. It’s risen because corporate execs think they can gouge you for money to increase the high scores in their bank accounts. Increased demand means they’d be selling more which would mean more profits or even your bills decreasing if they were being fair. As usual it’s corps and billionaires that are the problem
Pointing out the huge environmental cost and relative uselessness of shiny word predictors is not pushing nonsense.
Claiming a tiny environmental impact is huge in order to push an agenda is bullshit and you know it
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending everyone has an agenda is bullshit and you know it.
Right back at ya! Calling out bullshit agendas is not bullshit and you, know it
Ok dude. Enjoy
I think we found the google engineer.
Why? Because I’m not keen on lies and bullshit? I don’t work for google