I thought it was clear and am also surprised by the reaction (en-US speaker). "Is/are expected" is generally used as a passive-voiced form of "we/they predict" (obviously without having to specify a specific pronoun). E.g. "It's expected to rain tomorrow" means a weather forecast says it will rain tomorrow and usually not that people want it to rain tomorrow.

I wonder if this phrase has different connotations among other English readers? A lot of these comments are fairly early for US timezones.

[dead]

In practice it’s useful too. The local translation in Firefox is quite good, and I love that I can translate pages entirely on my machine; without the contents going to another server.

As for Apple foundational models, I think the issue is more that they’re just not very intelligent or good; maybe WWDC will change that; but if you want to implement LLM functionality, you’re better off either calling an API, or shipping a better small on device model.

I don't think thus is what was meant. I don't think they were questioning if OS and browser makers were embedding llm features but rather if people want them.

I find many frustrating. I had an iphone previously and the llm summaries of text messages are what drove me to finally drop ios. I have a family member who is undergoing cancer treatment. I can't explain to you the frustration of seeing wrong text summaries when an llm goes wild hallucinating test results when the actual text simply said taking a test. OS basics and communication should be trustable. Not perhaps hallucinations of a small shitty model.

>> people who are incapable of anything except bikeshedding

The amount of insulting language directed at people who actually have an open mind about AI and AI tooling is frustrating. Can you all just please address the merits of the topic of the post instead of making every AI-related post on HN an excuse to vent about your own particular worldview and insult people who don't necessarily agree?

I think the resentment for Copilot is pretty much universal. People like AI, when it’s not forced upon them.

A lot of these products feel unguided by an “everything must become AI” FOMO movement, rather than actual thoughtful integrations.

Their whole argument is based on this sentence. So I'd expect some rationale. Instead, they provide as "example" links to Google, Microsoft and Apple. The funny thing is that the one by MS is probably the most criticized one, with the company partly backpedaling on it. And Apple is often criticized by LLM aficionados for being quite conservative. Google is the one proposing it.

So my question is: are browsers and operating systems really expected to gain access to language models? If so - by whom: the users or LLM vendors like Google?

That “are expected” is a euphemism for “are shoehorning AI in and trying to shove it down users’ throats”. Whereas the truth is nobody (actual end users, that is) wants it.

I hate having to “dodge” all the AI-enabled controls my phone (iOS) is sprouting - I don’t need that shit, but there’s also no alternative.

> What are you trying to say?

GP is clearly asking ”Are they?”

These features are enabled by default, and in the case of iOS/macOS, desktop Chrome, probably also Copilot+ PCs, download 4 - 7 GB local models without properly explaining this to users. This doesn’t confirm any demand because if you just don’t use the features and don’t fill up your device, you may never notice.

I think this API is probably fine, but only if the user already has a model downloaded and wants these features. Naturally, case in point, Chrome quietly downloads Gemini Nano without any opt-out except through group policy. Things like this and Microsoft’s recent admission that they’ve overindexed on Copilot features in Windows make it increasingly difficult to trust that users actually want more than a few killer AI features, most of which are just ChatGPT.

Anecdotally, non-technical friends and family members know about ChatGPT and increasingly Gemini, get frustrated by Copilot, and don’t know Apple Intelligence exists.

https://superuser.com/questions/1930445/can-i-delete-the-chr...

The word "expected" is a weasel word in this context, especially given how muck backlash MS has received. I'd expect a link to a study where users say: "I'd like to have an LLM integrated with my operating system and my browser" and how it changes over time. Then you can seriously argue for "increasingly expected".

You omitted the clause "by shareholders" after "expected".

> So it's >90% desktop browser and OS, plus >30% mobile OS. > Yes, I think it's very safe to say "browsers and operating systems are increasingly expected to gain access to language models."

Doesn't follow. Every case you listed justifies LLM inclusion with a similar "everything is expected to be defiled by LLMs" argument, mine is a better wording but still evasively passive and the "expected" part is still nonsense.

Just don't tell me LLM inclusion is justified by "expected" all the way down, like the bottomless money pit it is.

What this proves is that browsers and operating systems are increasingly integrating language models, not that they are expected to do so.

The only people who expect them to do so are big tech executives. The average user does not expect nor want Copilot shoved into every possible corner of Windows, and Microsoft themselves have acknowledged this.