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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why are they so hungry for data? If it's so intelligent, why does it need to learn by imitation so much?
It feels almost like "AI" can't be built without trillions of hours of human work, yet the ownership of the models and the resulting revenue goes only to those in positions of power to exploit that labor instead of the people doing actual work.
Chrome removes claim of On-device Al not sending data to Google Servers
(old.reddit.com)622 points by newsoftheday 7 May 2026 | 244 comments
Comments
Heck, most of them think the Internet is Chrome.
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.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Do I even need to ask?
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.
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.
The motivation vectors exist here to ensure that, over time, Chrome behaves in ways the end user DOES NOT WANT.
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.
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.
I called that bullshit, guess this article is just proving my point.
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.
It feels almost like "AI" can't be built without trillions of hours of human work, yet the ownership of the models and the resulting revenue goes only to those in positions of power to exploit that labor instead of the people doing actual work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_computing