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.
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
Data center operators can and will negotiate yearly rates for bulk electricity up. That’s how they can guarantee supply, by paying more than the competition. Small local distributors will never have that kind of leverage, that’s why consumers end up paying more.
So yes, you are correct in saying that corporations and billionaires are the problem, but in this particular case, it’s because of a particular subset of those.
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
Hmmm. I wonder which corpo executive runs my local community power collective.
Data center operators can and will negotiate yearly rates for bulk electricity up. That’s how they can guarantee supply, by paying more than the competition. Small local distributors will never have that kind of leverage, that’s why consumers end up paying more.
So yes, you are correct in saying that corporations and billionaires are the problem, but in this particular case, it’s because of a particular subset of those.