By now you've all probably heard about the latest shenanigans from Google and their love for in-browser AI features (if you don't, this is the story: https://www.theverge.com/tech/924933/google-chrome-4gb-gemini-nano-ai-features).

[cholling@bytes.programming.dev]

@pl @HunterZ @Vivaldi Are you seriously proposing using AI agents in a thread about keeping AI out of the browser?

[jeanieburrell@mstdn.social]

@Vivaldi And that's why I remain a happy Vivaldi user!

[pl@cosocial.ca]

@cholling @Vivaldi @HunterZ I am suggesting that AI coding agents can help with the difficulty of creating and managing an independent engine, not that any AI features should be embedded in a browser

[hunterz@mastodon.sdf.org]

@cholling @Vivaldi @pl

[solitha@mastodon.social]

@cynical13 You can add it easily, or edit DDG to the noai version.

@Vivaldi

[hunterz@mastodon.sdf.org]

@pl @cholling @Vivaldi Linux is the only meaningful competitor to Apple and Microsoft OSes, and it's a niche thing that is mostly used for servers rather than by end users. It's also now subsidized by corporations because they use it as infrastructure.

Browsers on the other hand are an end user thing, so the value proposition of trying to break Google's (and to a lesser extent) Apple's hegemony is much different - especially since Google is also propping up Mozilla to suck even more oxygen.

[cynical13@social.vivaldi.net]

@solitha @Vivaldi

Yes, I can.

But if the company is making a stand against AI like this, should I *have* to?...

[rejzor@mastodon.social]

@Vivaldi I actually highly encourage local Ai models that work fully offline for obvious reasons, but one thing is doing things openly and transparently and another is downloading 4GB model without telling user because you're Google and you "know better".

[tezoatlipoca@mas.to]

@kyu3a

Apart from everyone else pointing out this is a search engine problem not a browser problem, in general I wouldn't want my browser to carte-blance remove or filter (or in any way "interpret" my chosen web content. Its different when a plugin does this, because adding the plugin to your browser is an opt-in affair; and ux wise, when a plugin filters or alters content there's a way to notice or find out what it is doing (some kind of "splat").

1/

[tezoatlipoca@mas.to]

@kyu3a

In addition, say Vivaldi had a "Filter Gemni Google 'Ai Overview'" feature. a) would Vivaldi be smart enough to filter it on a possibly proxied google search and NOT say in an article about Google Ai Overview somewhere else? b) everytime the Google search page front end changes (which I bet is seven times/day) your browser has to update and Vivaldi already pushes numerous changes/week, just saying (keep doing it tho.)

2/2

[solitha@mastodon.social]

@cynical13 I was just making sure you were aware of your options there.

I agree with your sentiment.

@Vivaldi

[lodovichi@social.vivaldi.net]

@Vivaldi Thank you for keeping it "simple".

[tezoatlipoca@mas.to]

@Cal @EricCarroll @Vivaldi

Their repackage of Chromium might be opaque, but at least they're upfront about their funding model: https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-business-model/

[cholling@bytes.programming.dev]

@pl @Vivaldi @HunterZ So slop code is fine but you draw the line at slop browsing?

I'd be really curious to see the security and maintainability nightmare of a browser you could vibe up with your AI chatbox.

[pl@cosocial.ca]

@cholling @Vivaldi @HunterZ aren't you a delight to chat with. Unsubscribe please and thank you

[rootbrian@mastodon.social]

@Vivaldi At least firefox is up-front about and gives you the option to outright disable it all at will.
The only one thing I keep enabled, is the website translation - that's it (doesn't rely on google).

[rantingcanuck@mstdn.ca]

@dalias @lazza @Vivaldi

️ ️ ️ This!!!!!