←back to thread

Gemini CLI

(blog.google)
1342 points sync | 9 comments | 25 Jun 25 13:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
ipsum2 ◴[25 Jun 25 16:21 UTC] No.44379036[source]▶
If you use this, all of your code data will be sent to Google. From their terms:

https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/resources/p...

When you use Gemini Code Assist for individuals, Google collects your prompts, related code, generated output, code edits, related feature usage information, and your feedback to provide, improve, and develop Google products and services and machine learning technologies.

To help with quality and improve our products (such as generative machine-learning models), human reviewers may read, annotate, and process the data collected above. We take steps to protect your privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting the data from your Google Account before reviewers see or annotate it, and storing those disconnected copies for up to 18 months. Please don't submit confidential information or any data you wouldn't want a reviewer to see or Google to use to improve our products, services, and machine-learning technologies.

replies(20): >>44379046 #>>44379132 #>>44379301 #>>44379405 #>>44379410 #>>44379497 #>>44379544 #>>44379636 #>>44379643 #>>44380425 #>>44380586 #>>44380762 #>>44380864 #>>44381305 #>>44381716 #>>44382190 #>>44382418 #>>44382537 #>>44383744 #>>44384828 #
mattzito ◴[25 Jun 25 16:44 UTC] No.44379301[source]▶
It's a lot more nuanced than that. If you use the free edition of Code Assist, your data can be used UNLESS you opt out, which is at the bottom of the support article you link to:

"If you don't want this data used to improve Google's machine learning models, you can opt out by following the steps in Set up Gemini Code Assist for individuals."

and then the link: https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/set-up...

If you pay for code assist, no data is used to improve. If you use a Gemini API key on a pay as you go account instead, it doesn't get used to improve. It's just if you're using a non-paid, consumer account and you didn't opt out.

That seems different than what you described.

replies(4): >>44379517 #>>44380349 #>>44381012 #>>44382425 #
foob ◴[25 Jun 25 18:21 UTC] No.44380349[source]▶
your data can be used UNLESS you opt out

It's even more nuanced than that.

Google recently testified in court that they still train on user data after users opt out from training [1]. The loophole is that the opt-out only applies to one organization within Google, but other organizations are still free to train on the data. They may or may not have cleaned up their act given that they're under active investigation, but their recent actions haven't exactly earned them the benefit of the doubt on this topic.

[1] https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/googl...

replies(6): >>44380772 #>>44381196 #>>44381287 #>>44382297 #>>44382437 #>>44385194 #
1. echelon ◴[25 Jun 25 19:46 UTC] No.44381196[source]▶
We need to stop giving money and data to hyperscalers.

We need open infrastructure and models.

replies(1): >>44381463 #
2. Xss3 ◴[25 Jun 25 20:19 UTC] No.44381463[source]▶
People said the same thing about shopping at walmart instead of locally.
replies(1): >>44381576 #
3. oblio ◴[25 Jun 25 20:34 UTC] No.44381576[source]▶
Isn't that as toxic? I've read a bunch about Walmart and the whole thing is basically a scam.

They get a ton of tax incentives, subsidies, etc to build shoddy infrastructure that can only be used for big box stores (pretty much), so the end cost for Walmart to build their stores is quite low.

They promise to employ lots of locals, but many of those jobs are intentionally paid so low that they're not actually living wages and employees are intentionally driven to government help (food stamps, etc), and together with other various tax cuts, etc, there's a chance that even their labor costs are basically at break even.

Integrated local stores are better for pretty much everything except having a huge mass to throw around and bully, bribe (pardon me, lobby) and fool (aka persuade aka PR/marketing).

replies(2): >>44381969 #>>44388228 #
4. CamperBob2 ◴[25 Jun 25 21:25 UTC] No.44381969{3}[source]▶
Integrated local stores are better for pretty much everything except for actually having what you want in stock.

There is a reason why rural communities welcome Wal-Mart with open arms. Not such a big deal now that you can mail-order anything more-or-less instantly, but back in the 80s when I was growing up in BFE, Wal-Mart was a godsend.

replies(2): >>44386683 #>>44388243 #
5. oblio ◴[26 Jun 25 12:18 UTC] No.44386683{4}[source]▶
The 80s were 40 years ago, though. Something can outlive its usefulness.
replies(2): >>44388115 #>>44389296 #
6. CamperBob2 ◴[26 Jun 25 15:00 UTC] No.44388115{5}[source]▶
True. A good example being Sears, which should have become Amazon but didn't. Prior to the arrival of Wal-Mart, if you couldn't find something locally (which, again, was true more often than not) your options were to drive 50-150 miles to the nearest large city, or order from the local Sears catalog merchant.

The latter wasn't what most people think of as a Sears store, because the local economy could never have supported such a thing. It was more like a small office with a counter and a stockroom behind it. They didn't keep any inventory, but could order products for pickup in about a week. Pickup, mind you. You still had to drive to town to get your order. As stupid as this sounds, it was 10x worse in person.

So if Wal-Mart didn't exist, it would have had to be invented. It was not (just) a monster that victimized smaller merchants and suppliers, a tax scam, or a plot to exploit the welfare system. It was something that needed to happen, a large gap in the market that eventually got filled.

Nowadays I wouldn't set foot in one, but it was different at the time. I didn't mean to write a long essay stanning for Wal-Mart, but your original post is a bit of a pet peeve.

7. kortilla ◴[26 Jun 25 15:15 UTC] No.44388228{3}[source]▶
You forgot the part where nobody wants to shop at local stores and pay twice as much for 1/4 of the inventory.

Walmart spread so successfully precisely because so many people immediately started shopping there for all of the basics.

8. kortilla ◴[26 Jun 25 15:17 UTC] No.44388243{4}[source]▶
This hasn’t changed much. In rural communities there isn’t same day or even over-night Amazon.

It may have shifted where people buy things they can wait for, but for weekly shopping I don’t think it has.

9. s1artibartfast ◴[26 Jun 25 17:14 UTC] No.44389296{5}[source]▶
Local stores are better in many ways, but not the ones consumers care about: price and convenience.