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

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.

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.

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.

And right after https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019219 huh

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.

As soon as "don't be evil" became a topic for debate it was over, if you're surprised you haven't been paying attention.

I wonder if this is in response to the chrome incognito lawsuit.

When Google did that, did they default the "sending data" feature to off?

Do I even need to ask?

Google and Meta always phone home….

Surely there's a googler on here who actually knows whether they are doing this. Anyone actually know or is this post all about Chrome bashing and speculation?

For someone with more knowledge than me: How does this affect other Chromium based browsers?

I did some web searches and see Brave has its own AI thing “Leo” that is intended to preserve privacy. But I don’t think that is on device. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I use Firefox myself but have family and friends who use various Chromium based browsers.

Thank you.

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.

Use anything BUT Chrome or Edge.

Since the thread evolved into browser comparisons, I'd like to endorse a better uBlock ('s fork) - AdNausem.

It doesn't block ads. It clicks them first, and then blocks them.

I don't want websites to loose revenue because of my adnlocker. I want them to make extra money because of it!

I'm not affiliated, but would like the project to get more followers. This can stop ads once and for all.

I still don't understand why so many people have accepting using an ad company's browser.

The motivation vectors exist here to ensure that, over time, Chrome behaves in ways the end user DOES NOT WANT.

as if they didn’t have enough data already, good choice to lose any remaining trust from the public over this

"on-device" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when the device is a thin client to Google's servers wearing a trench coat.

It's on-device AI spyware, really. It collects intelligence about the user, summarizes it and sends it to Google, all paid by the user's electricity bill. Deviously clever.

I too am surprised anyone uses Chrome, but I will admit to feeling similarly surprised by how many people use Brave. The company seems so sketchy to me, and I wonder why people who presumably care about web standards are so willing to use Chromium-based anything too.

Has anyone found a browser with comparably good dev tools to Chrome?

Just today Google launched it's health app on Android and promised to not use people's data to sell them ads.

I called that bullshit, guess this article is just proving my point.

As soon as data starts being exfiltrated to Google (or any Big Tech firm), be sure that governments will demand their copy of the stream too.

The non-disclosure clauses in mass surveillance legislation will ensure the process is opaque to users.

You’ll only find out about it when your door is smashed down and all your devices are seized, because Chrome’s crappy 4GB AI model misinterpreted an innocent photo of your kid in a paddling pool.

Google weighs in on Chrome's weights.bin controversy https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-weights-bin-f...

I mean to be expected of Google. Even their Google Pay sends data to their servers whenever you use it to make payments, effectively also making it so you can't even use it without service. Apple Pay does not, runs the whole thing on-device, and not only is private, but as a result also enables payments entirely offline.

Temporary escape hatch: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Al or AI?

What we learn: we can not trust Google.

They're probably doing some degenerate form of [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_computing