Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ddtaylor's commentslogin

The problem is that some of us are still on connections that charge per GB in rural areas. Here in Montana it's very common to pay about $0.25 per GB regardless of how much you use, so this is a $1 additional cost per desktop device. Places like public school districts have hundreds of computers and this will be somewhat significant for them.

I was thinking a similar thing. Many of our customers have purpose use computers that rarely see physical infrastructure internet, but need a modern browser (many chose Chrome on their own, we never recommended it).

They're going to get blasted with cellular data charges when they fire up their computer in the field.


Google's updater service also currently ignores the windows 11 metered connection hint. It will gladly download that model over your cell connection even if you have a data cap.

This is infuriating behavior.

Silicon Valley must wake up and understand the entire world does not live like them.


I think it falls more into the category of needing consent like a crypto miner would. If I use a piece of software to do X and it begins using more resources to do Y that can be a serious issue and is at the heart of this discussion.

A crypto miner needs consent because it burns your battery and CPU power with no benefit to you. This AI model would only be used when you invoke it so the only problem is disk space, which the comment you're replying to acknowledges as a point of issue.

Or some website decides for you that you now want to talk to your local AI chatbot using google chrome prompt api.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/prompt-api


> This AI model would only be used when you invoke it

You sure about that? How explicit is the invocation? assuming it’s only run when the user does something (big assumption), does the user know clicking that summarize button is going to bog their system down and crank up their electricity use?


Indeed. Trusting that it will only be processing the user's queries - as opposed to, say, becoming part of a distributed grid of AI processing nodes - isn't a bet I'd be willing to place much money on.

You would be right if there's a popup box with two buttons appearing before installing the model and before every time it's used by some site.

Button 1: "Stop the AI now to save X GB of RAM".

Button 2: "Erase all browser AI to save X GB of RAM and Y GB of disk"

This isn't asking for consent, it's simply informing the user about what oversized resources are optional and providing an honest way to save them.

The only alternative to that is formal consent.


A crypto miner generates revenue needed to run the service, similar to ads.

We've seen this on HN before as well. Companies targeting blogs and reddit with LLM generated content that "subtly" name drop products or services, fake praise, and even meaningless "support" requests on discussion boards.

The tweet mentions it being in a JSON blob.

Gemini gave 42

I think it's because of Wordpress sites, as their titles often have them and the editor automatically turns things into them. A large part of the Internet has been powered by WP.

What happens if someone does the exploit in WSL?

Why assume people lock knowledge in a box and charge for access?

An AI researcher can work anywhere they want, can't they? At the minimum they could work in a different field entirely. It seems like a false dichotomy to frame the question around laws.

Got it. It's immoral because you said so.

What did I say was immoral?

Just use the existing magic wormhole protocol. It works and has been deployed for a long time.

No. It is using a central “well known server” and requires internet.

Test:

    * Does it work in an airplane?
    * Does it work in a submarine?
    * Does it work in the mountains, when a thunderstorm is approach and you need to share the GPX?

Basically my Garmin Edge and iPhone can do this. Magic-Wormhole fails in all test cases.

Implementation shall be able to negoiate a connection locally (e.g. Bluetooth) and upgrade to peer-to-peer WiFi if need (Garmin doesn’t need that part, GPX are usually smaller than 1024 KB).


Modifications can be made to do that minimal peer exchange over BT. They may already exist, but I haven't used that part yet.

It seems like a lot of extra work to reinvent the wheel and get the security wrong instead of extending a well established protocol with many other tools built on top of it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: