upvote
Your word might be of petabytes of traffic. Some people have slow lines. Some people have metered Internet subscriptions.

Not everyone has access to the same infrastructure you have.

reply
Yeah I have to run ski race software with slow and intermittent internet. It is things like this that can wreck the race and bankrupt the small club if we have to refund entry fees to an entire field. It really is brutal and real. Looking at you windows update and now Google and Chrome.
reply
Or just tethering abroad with an esim data plan... Just opening chrome would deplete your quota and leave you stranded. Google you are sick!
reply
Surely it will wait when the connection is marked as metered.
reply
I definitely trust Google's team (and large trillion dollar companies with sufficient resources to do this) to make reasonable choices for their users... said, perhaps, someone ever? Certainly not me.

(I wanted to write something far snarkier and sarcastic but getting annoyed at google is like getting annoyed at a lawnmower/Oracle. That plus HN guidelines.)

reply
It's somewhat known that Chrome isn't catering to those users. They aim to deliver feature-rich experiences rather than be the de-facto browser for resource-constrained devices.
reply
Okay, but that's still not an environmental disaster.
reply
I do not agree: I live by the sea and this is exactly the answer I get when I talk about trash in the sea. I personally appreciate even more that kind of "stretch" then the privacy one (which could be another "stretch" on getting closer to 1984 scenario)
reply
I guess you can write an article about every new gigabyte released, and we can use more gigabytes talking about it, but other than that I don't see that any one gigabyte of software I don't want is especially more noteworthy than any other gigabyte of software I don't want.

An xBox game can be 50+ gigs. Millions of gamers. Fire up the presses!

I'm not at all saying nothing matters so we shouldn't care. I just disagree about the utility of calling out specific things out of proportion to their place in the climate crisis. Tackle AI, yes, and fast fashion and cars, and ... that one change to Chrome? I guess if that's where you want to put your energy, Sisyphus.

reply

     I don't see that any one gigabyte of software I don't want is especially more
     noteworthy than any other gigabyte of software I don't want.
I feel like you're being intentionally naive here. There's a difference between a forum using up a gig here or there, and one of the biggest software makers in the world shipping 4GB to all of its millions of users (if not billions at this point).
reply
> An xBox game can be 50+ gigs.

In my experience a game worth playing never exceeded 1 (one) gig in size.

It is only incompetent creators that feel the need to bury their incompetence under gigabytes of irrelevance.

reply
Chrome is used by about 3.8 billion people [1]. So, if this is rolled out to every chrome user over the next year or two, this would generate about 15 Exabytes of traffic. It's difficult to find accurate, useful numbers on this, but lets assume 29 grams of CO2e per GB, this would be about 450k tons of CO2e. This in turn, equates to average household CO2 expenditure of almost 300k households.

So make your own judgement, but this seem pretty significant to me.

[1]: https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/global-chrome-user-base/ [2]: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-str... [3]: https://www.anthesisgroup.com/insights/what-exactly-is-1-ton...

reply
Yes and this is just the first version of this model. As if there won't be an update (complete replacement) of the model every few months.
reply
This is about the same as each of those people streaming a movie to their TV. There's no there there.
reply
> but lets assume 29 grams of CO2e per GB

29 grams for something that takes most folks less than 20 seconds to download? How many watts (neglecting the machinery was going to be running regardless of whether you are transferring something!) do you think it takes to transfer data?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

Coal, the absolute worst of all, represents 18 grams over 60 full seconds to produce 1000 watts of power.

reply
Most folks have >400Mbps connections now (ignoring frame overhead, unsaturated pipes, TCP window size scaling time, etc.)? That’s amazing news.
reply
Traffic is not homogeneous in total transfer cost. CDN-hosted data at the edge, close to the user is much cheaper than data that has to transit many hops. At the asymptote, transferring data between machines on the LAN is essentially free.
reply
What is a lot of traffic to you?

2.5 million downloads of 4 GB are 10 PB of traffic.

I think there are be a lot more than 2.5 million Chrome users in the world.

reply
More data moves in your average playstation system update than that. Steam probably transmits more in a morning than that
reply
There are far more Google Chrome users than probably PlayStation & Steam users combined.

Also, someone installing Steam is going to expect large downloads, hell, the platform tells you the size as you're about to start the download.

I don't think anyone expects a browser to suddenly download 4GB, let alone behind their backs!

reply
Have you ever watched a 2 hour lecture on Youtube? Next time check the memory consumption of the open tab.
reply
A 720x400 two-soundtrack rip of first season of 'On becoming god in central Florida' is only 5.5G. That's 10 episodes. Now what you were saying about 2-hour lectures?
reply
You only download it when some JS requests it for the first time, most people will never have it.
reply
I never intentionally used any AI features in Chrome but first was made aware of the models when my disk was running out of space. I investigated with a disk usage tool and found I had multiple versions of the model in my Chrome directory taking up ~12gb. This was about half a year ago and maybe I was in a bad experiment or something but it's definitely not opt in or user visible. Less tech savvy people will have a really hard time understanding why their disk space is running low.
reply
> You only download it when some JS requests it for the first time, most people will never have it.

i certainly never activated it willfully. i use Chrome only as a fallback testing platform for web dev - a handful of times per month - yet both Chrome Stable and Chrome Unstable had installed this 4GB monstrosity in my home dir. 8GB of junk i'd never used. Both have since been uninstalled and replaced with Chromium.

reply
Do you think this will not be part of some google product? On top of their normal agenda, this seems perfectly suited for them to push their AI models. So if you use anything from Google via Chrome, I would expect that this will end up on your device sooner or later.
reply
You estimate more or less than 2.5 million?

If you google OptGuideOnDeviceModel, there’s already a lot of results of people asking what it is an how they can delete them. It’s not some kind of obscure niche feature.

I wonder when the first crypto miner-like malware appears that offloads model usage to the client computers.

reply
I suspect it's not that simple. Last week I noticed I already had it downloaded on one of my devices, even though I'm sure the number of websites already using this API is miniscule.
reply
Wikipedia say 3.6 billion Chrome users.
reply
Amazing how many people missed the "environmental disaster" part of this post and are talking about personal inconvenience.

Sorry folks, your low bandwidth situation is not, in fact, a climate change emergency.

reply
Whilst I am sceptical about Google in this space I do think it is a move in the right direction to do more locally and actually use the space modern machines have on device.
reply
The same old individualistic fallacy [1] of highlighting individual effects to hide global effects, all while compromising user privacy. In reality this will be continuous million of devices downloading these useless weight files.

[1] Used since forever by the Tobacco & Pharmaceutical, Fossil Fuels & Climate, Food & Diet Industries.

reply
60.000.000 kg ÷ 1.000.000.000 user

is about 60 gramms of co2 per user?

reply
Which ullustrates that humanity has reached such numbers that the smallest collective change has an enormous impact.
reply
How do you propose maintaining the living conditions you've become accustomed to without the system we have currently, as shit as it is?
reply
There’s the problem: we want change without giving up the things we’re accustomed to. We’re locked in.
reply
By "the things we're accustomed to" you mean food, jobs, healthcare, education?
reply
You had food as a barbarian. Job wasn't needed because you weren't enslaved by your feudal lord, healthcare and education being the only benefits of civilization... largely benefits for the rich and not the peasantry I might add
reply
There are multiple problems here.

For one, not everyone in this world lives on high bandwidth unmetered connections. In Germany, you got a lot of people still running on 16 MBit/s ADSL, that's half an hour worth of full load just for AI garbage. With the average 50 MBit/s, it's still 10 minutes. For those running on hotspots - be it their phone with often enough 10 GB or less on your average data plan or train hotspots that cut you off after 200MB - the situation is similarly dire.

The other thing is storage. I got a nominally 256GB MacBook Air. Of these 256 GB, easily 50GB are already gone for macOS itself, swap, Recovery and everything that macOS doesn't store as part of the immutable partition (such as, you guessed it, its own AI models). Taking up 2% of the disk space without consent is definitely Not Cool.

reply
Another angle is the processing cost, I assume Google is seeking to offload the computation for whatever features this covers from their own data centers to end users. On the scale of billions that's probably measurable and from google's side worth doing whether the users is paying for the service or not, and each of them will have more power usage with some reduced battery life on portable devices. At that scale I'd also wonder about efficiency based on what proportion of end users are using AI or running it on CPU/GPU/NPU.
reply
4Gb times 2,000,000,000 chrome installs gives us 8,000 petabytes. Are we allowed to worry now?
reply
I would more worry about storage space on some laptops with pretty small SSDs like 192-256GB of official capacity prior installing Windows, 4GB of that is already pretty significant part of storage space for something which should be opt-in.
reply
What is petabytes if not 4GB at Chrome userbase scale?
reply
Agreed, my eyes rolled hard at that. Definitely more of an F-U to users with bad connections than anything else.
reply
The next Netflix breakout show will burn this planet to the grounds :)
reply
Netflix does not store 4gb on your drive...
reply
and people on very limited bandwidth and/or speed don't watch Netflix (or do so at most at 1080p) and if they watch netflix they are fine with clogging up their internet as it isn't some random backround download hindering what they want to do but what they are actively doing
reply
It does if it triggers this download.
reply
Its unsollicited. Not everyone has fiber either
reply