The question of whether web browsers will one day be expected to normally include an LLM is not at all relevant to the situation at hand, where that absolutely is not the expected or typical behavior of a browser. Google should be asking for consent now even if they expect in several years time to be able to presume consent for this.

> By that reasoning, any novel/cutting-edge addition to a browser or other software is wrong?

This is IME the default position on HN. Seemingly a complete showcase of the appropriate scope of web technology can be found at http://info.cern.ch.

I am against built-in VPN for the same reason I am against this. There is nothing novel or cutting edge about them. Any browser could have done it back in 2003, but they didn't do it for a reason.

Of course, it's not like any of this matters in the end.

Any addition that has nothing to do with the purpose of the program is wrong.

That why ERPs added CRM and DMS functionalities, CRM added DMS and ERP features and DMS got messenger parts.

Of course those new functions can’t compete with the programs made for these functions in the first place and at the end of the day even the main functionality got worse.

Here is the additional point that Google enforces their own model without asking.

Usually programs with additional features give you an option page to select/deselect unwanted features

> at some future time we'll say, "but a local AI model is a standard function of a web browser.

And before that point ask the user for consent.

It’s not that hard.

If you make a sudden big change, ask for consent.