React is really a bad example because you really don't need it. I am no web dev, but I think React is an abomination. The reason I can confidently say it without knowing every detail there is to it is simply that there aren't impressive websites that show it. There should be some that by now. The number of reused components is probably quite analogous to reused classes in OO. It can make sense, but sometimes it also sometimes doesn't.
Some suggested it could become web standard and I just hope it doesn't. React is beyond opinionated. It certainly has a raison d'être for some applications, but the problem is simply that it didn't put our less buggy or generally better sites.
Internally I oppose react as much as possible. The reason beginners use it is because of job security. The reason experts start projects with it is because it enforces encapsulation, inversion of control and declarative code. Can you do all those yourself in freeform js? yes, of course. It is their way of imposing these traits.
It's funny because I was watching a lot of amazing new tech appear after I was 35 and most of it was exciting. Learning these things was fun and rewarding. You could say it made me happier.
Not sure why LLMs feel the opposite. Maybe it's because of the terrible marketing and pushing it down everyone's throats. Maybe it's because of the personality of people like sama, or how it's being used to produce the so-called AI slop globally. Maybe something completely different. But there's something bleak and off-putting in it.
I think this is the wrong way. I don’t want my OS or browser to have access to an LLM, but I do want my LLM to have access to a browser or OS (and they already have).
So they should provide an interface to LLMs, disabled by default, enabled when users want it, and that’s it imho.
That also gives me the choice of which LLM provider to use, rather than being locked in whatever LLM Apple decided to do put in their OS.
I want to give Claude access to the stuff Apple Intelligence has access to, for example.
Wow. I had no idea that people would misinterpret what I was saying in this way. I was not meaning to imply it was an expectation of users or developers. I was meaning it as a statement of what was currently a growing industry trend by OS and browser vendors, of shipping or preparing to ship LMs.
By now the statement could probably be amended from "expected to gain access to" to "shipping with".
I hope the team maintaining the project now makes such an update, since apparently it's confusing so many people!
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.
I don't think US vs. non-US has anything to do with it. It's an ambiguous phrase, whose meaning is usually resolved by context.
"It's expected to rain tomorrow" is a prediction, whereas "students are expected to behave themselves" is an expectation (with consequences, presumably).
In the former case we clearly aren't saying we want it to rain, just that we believe it's likely, whereas in the latter example we are clearly expressing that we do want students to behave.
It's ambiguous because "expect" has two different meanings:
Sure. macOS, iOS and Windows have local model APIs for third-party devs. Chrome is trialing it. Firefox uses models to generate alt-text, but no API.
In theory it's useful. If devs can rely on local models, it's more private and decentralized, they don't need to funnel money to AWS or Anthropic. There are low-stakes use cases that only make sense if they're local (available offline) and free.
But in practice I've seen zero adoption of Apple Foundation Models in native apps. I wonder if any Mac/iOS devs have anything to share on this.
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.
Yeah I looked into the Apple Foundation models and was surprised at their limited scope. On reflection it made sense though. They’re giving you the small part of the LLM capability surface that (1) can run with good performance on all their hardware and (2) works reliably.
It’s not enough for a chat-first research agent, but it’s definitely enough to unlock features that rely on natural language understanding. Seems like a small thing compared to Claude/ChatGPT and the general hype, but still magic in its own context.
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.
AI massively empowers people who are incapable of anything except bikeshedding. It itself is very likely to be a bikeshed (but there are legitimate uses), and it also gives them to power to drone on until they overpower any opposition to their useless ideas.
Everything is increasingly expected to gain bikesheds.
>> 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?
Platform support for AI has as much place in a browser as it does in Notepad. This isn't about being open-minded at all. I have written multiple MCPs, I use it daily, I am not in the crowd who "don't have an open mind." This outright non-feature is a significant source of issues, least of which is fingerprinting.
Make an AI browser extension. Done.
Shoving AI into anything where it can go is not having an open mind about things, it's nothing more shoving AI into anything where it can go.
On the inverse, can you provide a single reason why this API should exist which is isn't something that obviously erupted from an LLM? Again:
> Browsers and operating systems are increasingly expected to gain access to language models.
God help people if they have to copy their prompt from ChatGPT to Claude.
It's the typical "cart before the horse" kind of corporate tech talk. It's pretty standard if Silicon Valley wants to sell shit that nobody actually wants; they just assume that people will want it, regardless whether or not they actually want it. Most of the tech press is too obsessed with retaining their "access" to actually be critical of this sort of thing, and most of the regular press doesn't care enough to actually investigate.
We've seen this sort of song and dance before, crypto jumps to mind. Remember when social media sites suddenly were all about those hexagonal avatars? Most of this stuff is really in that same vein.
(Which to be clear, users don't want this. AI pushes by pretty much all recent user feedback metrics are largely tiring out users and reek of corporate desperation to sell shit. It's only a very specific subsection of Silicon Valley that wants to stuff AI in everything like this.)
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.
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.
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".
> 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.
> I’m not from the US and not trying to defend the US actions, but on Iraq and Gaza, much of Europe takes the same position and goes along with it (and even directly joined the wars and sent troops).
What?!
I'm not talking about the recent events when Europe not only didn't joint Trump's war but openly refused the use of its military bases. Even in the past when the so-called "coalition of the willing" was formed, Europe had the biggest protests in its history. There were not hundreds of thousands but millions people on streets.
So your picture of uniformity was already false 20 years ago, and now it's just crystal clear.
Not trying to be a cynic, but I think you’ve got a bit of a rosy view of what happened and what is happening.
Concerning past wars: yes there were enormous protests. Just like today, many people disagreed with what was happening. But the same was true in the US; many Americans also disagreed with the Iraq war. There was an entire Bush vs Kerry election on that theme. In the end though, there’s a difference between what normal citizens are saying, and what the country actually does. This applies to both the US and Europe. With Iraq, despite all these protests, the majority of European states actually joined the war, with a few standout exceptions like the neutral states and France/Germany. And then they joined the US in several more regime change operations over the following two decades (and with these somehow the IS didn’t even seem like the main cheerleader).
With Iran now, there’s what normal people say and what politicians say and do. I haven’t seen any of the major leaders actually condemn the war apart from Spain. Most tweets are along the lines if “we are watching with concern but we agree something had to be done”. Macron only piped up against it like a month in, and that seemed as much related to Trump insulting his wife as it was to the war itself.
EU is the third largest economy and has 450m people. If they genuinely wanted to do something about this, about their oil being cut off and all the rest of it, they would have.
On Gaza too. Despite the large protests, and there are a few small nations plus Spain being vocal about it, but what concrete actions has the EU and European nations taken on Gaza? And have you actually seen the UK and German government responses to the protests?
Indeed, we are discussing the propaganda wasteland of Western media, more than anything else.
American media are owned by the same people making profit from selling the bombs falling in the genocide - so, it won't freely and openly report European upset at America's war crimes so readily.
> But then a portion of the US started believing the whole gift part, and now they're destroying their own control of the world order and forcing other to realign out of their control
I'm still not sure whether Trump actually believes it or if he's just using it as a propaganda tool. I remember how he reported a conversation with Macron telling him that Macron will have to increase the cost of drugs for French citizens. It was so completely out of touch as drug pricing works completely different in the EU. But he definitely likes to directly imply that all positive aspects of life in Europe are being sponsored by the USA (rather than citizens paying higher taxes). Who knows, maybe he believes it, I wouldn't be surprised really.
> it was transparently obvious that the idea of minimum spending commitment to NATO was intended to prop up the US arms industry
...to Trump. European leaders took it literally: since the USA stopped being a reliable partner, Europe needs to depend on itself for protection. It makes zero sense to buy American weapons if you can produce/purchase them on the continent.
People do want to learn and use new tech but instead what is promoted is an access to a proprietary and (increasingly more) expensive API.
reply