Is AI the future of web browsing?
If you don't remember, no one will blame you. Web browsers have remained fundamentally unchanged for decades: You open an app, such as Chrome, Safari or Firefox, and type a website into the address bar. Many of us settled on one and fell into what I call 'browser inertia,' never bothering to see if there's anything better.
Yet a web browser is important because so much of what we do on computers takes place inside one, including word processing, chatting on Slack and managing calendars and email.
That's why I felt excited when I recently tried Dia, a new kind of web browser from the Browser Co. of New York, a startup. The app is powered by generative artificial intelligence, the technology driving popular chatbots like ChatGPT and Google's Gemini, to answer our questions. Dia illuminates how a web browser can do much more than load websites – and even help us learn and save time.
I tested Dia for a week and found myself browsing the web in new ways. In seconds, the browser provided a written recap of a 20-minute video without my watching its entirety. While scanning a breaking news article, the browser generated a list of other relevant articles for a deeper understanding. I even wrote to the browser's built-in chatbot for help proofreading a paragraph of text.
Dia is on the cusp of an emerging era of AI-powered internet navigators that could persuade people to try something new. This week, Perplexity, a startup that makes a search engine, announced an AI web browser called Comet, and some news outlets have reported that OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, also plans to release a browser this year. OpenAI declined to comment. (The New York Times has sued OpenAI and its partner, Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to AI systems. The two companies have denied the suit's claims.)
Tech behemoths like Google and Apple have added lightweight AI features into their existing browsers, Chrome and Safari, including tools for proofreading text and automatically summarizing articles.
Dia, which has not yet been publicly released, is available as a free app for Mac computers on an invitation-only basis.
What does this all mean for the future of the web? Here's what you need to know.
What is an AI browser, and what does it do?
Like other web browsers, Dia is an app you open to load webpages. What's unique is the way the browser seamlessly integrates an AI chatbot to help – without leaving the webpage.
Hitting a shortcut (command+E) in Dia opens a small window that runs parallel to the webpage. Here, you can type questions related to the content you are reading or the video you are watching, and a chatbot will respond.
For example:
– While writing this column on the Google Docs website, I asked the chatbot if I used 'on the cusp' correctly, and it confirmed that I did.
– While reading a news article about the Texas floods, I asked the browser's chatbot to tell me more about how the crisis unfolded. The bot generated a summary about the history of Texas' public safety infrastructure and included a list of relevant articles.
– While watching a 22-minute YouTube video about car jump starters, I asked the chatbot to tell me which tools were best. Dia immediately pulled from the video's transcript to produce a summary of the top contenders, sparing me the need to watch the entire thing.
In contrast, chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude require opening a separate tab or app and pasting in content for the chatbot to evaluate and answer questions, a process that has always busted my workflow.
How does it work?
AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude generate responses using large language models, systems that use complex statistics to guess which words belong together. Each chatbot's model has its strengths and weaknesses.
The Browser Co. of New York said it had teamed up with multiple companies to use their AI models, including the ones behind Gemini, ChatGPT and Claude. When users type a question, the Dia browser analyzes it and pulls answers from whichever AI model is best suited for answering.
For instance, Anthropic's AI model, Claude Sonnet, specializes in computer programming. So if you have questions about something you are coding, the browser will pull an answer from that model. If you have questions about writing, the Dia browser may generate an answer with the model that OpenAI uses for ChatGPT, which is well known for handling language.
What I appreciate about this design is that you, the user, don't need to know or think about which chatbot to use. That makes generative AI more accessible to the mainstream.
'You should just be able to say, 'Hey, I'm looking at this thing, I've got a question about it,'' said Josh Miller, the CEO of the Browser Co., which was founded in 2020 and has raised over $100 million. 'We should be able to answer it for you and do work on your behalf.'
But aren't there imperfections?
While Dia proved helpful in most of my tests, it was, like all generative AI tools, sometimes incorrect.
While I was browsing Wirecutter, a New York Times publication that reviews products, I asked the chatbot if there were any deals on the site for water filters. The chatbot said no, even as I read about a water filtration system that was on sale.
Miller said that because the browser drew answers from various AI models, its responses were subject to the same mistakes as their respective chatbots. Those occasionally get facts wrong and even make things up, a phenomenon known as 'hallucination.'
More often than not, however, I found Dia to be more accurate and helpful than a stand-alone chatbot. Still, I double-checked answers by clicking on any links Dia's bot was citing, like the articles about the recent floods in Texas.
What about privacy?
Asking AI to help with a webpage you're looking at means that data may be shared with whatever AI model is being used to answer the question, which raises privacy concerns.
The Browser Co. said that only the necessary data related to your requests was shared with its partners providing AI models, and that those partners were under contract to dispose of your data.
Privacy experts have long warned not to share any sensitive information, like a document containing trade secrets, with an AI chatbot since a rogue employee could gain access to the data.
So I recommend asking Dia's chatbot for help only with innocuous browsing activities like parsing a YouTube video. But when browsing something you wouldn't want others to know about, like a health condition, refrain from using the AI.
This exchange – potentially giving up some privacy to get help from AI – may be the new social contract going forward.
How much will this cost?
Dia is free, but AI models have generally been very expensive for companies to operate. Consumers who rely on Dia's AI browser will eventually have to pay.
Miller said that in the coming weeks, Dia would introduce subscriptions costing US$5 a month to hundreds of dollars a month, depending on how frequently a user prods its AI bot with questions. The browser will remain free for those who use the AI tool only a few times a week.
So whether an AI browser will be your next web browser will depend largely on how much you want to use, and pay, for these services. So far, only 3% of the people who use AI every day are paid users, according to a survey by Menlo Ventures, a venture capital firm.
That number could grow, of course, if generative AI becomes a more useful tool that we naturally use in everyday life. I suspect the humble web browser will open that path forward. – ©2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
41 minutes ago
- The Star
AI researchers are negotiating US$250mil pay packages. Just like NBA stars
SAN FRANCISCO: Over the summer, Matt Deitke got a phone call from Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's chief executive. Zuckerberg wanted Deitke, a 24-year-old artificial intelligence researcher who had recently helped found a startup, to join Meta's research effort dedicated to 'superintelligence,' a technology that could hypothetically exceed the human brain. The company promised him around US$125mil (RM534.7mil) in stock and cash over four years if he came aboard. The offer was not enough to lure Deitke, who wanted to stick with his startup, two people with knowledge of the talks said. He turned Zuckerberg down. So Zuckerberg personally met with Deitke. Then Meta returned with a revised offer of around US$250mil (RM1bil) over four years, with potentially up to US$100mil (RM427.8mil) of that to be paid in the first year, the people said. The compensation jump was so startling that Deitke asked his peers what to do. After many discussions, some of them urged him to take the deal – which he did. Silicon Valley's AI talent wars have become so frenzied – and so outlandish – that they increasingly resemble the stratospheric market for NBA stars. Young AI researchers are being recruited as if they are Steph Curry or LeBron James, with nine-figure compensation packages structured to be paid out over several years. To navigate the froth, many of the 20-somethings have turned to unofficial agents and entourages to strategise. And they are playing hardball with the companies to get top dollar, much as basketball players shop for the best deals from teams. The difference is that unlike NBA teams, deep-pocketed AI companies like Meta, OpenAI and Google have no salary caps. (Curry's most recent four-year contract with the Golden State Warriors was US$35mil/RM150mil less than Deitke's deal with Meta.) That has made the battles for AI talent even wilder. Over the past few weeks, recruiting AI free agents has become a spectacle on social media, much like the period before a trade deadline in sports. As Meta, Microsoft, Google and OpenAI have poached employees from one another, job announcements have been posted online with graphics resembling major sports trades, made by the online streaming outlet TBPN, which hosts an ESPN-like show about the tech and business world. 'BREAKING: Microsoft has poached over 20 staff members from DeepMind over the last six months,' read one recent TBPN post about Microsoft's hiring from Google's DeepMind lab. Jordi Hays, a co-host of TBPN, said that as tech and AI have gone mainstream, more people are following the recruitment fray 'the way our friends from college obsess over sports – the personalities, the players, the leagues.' On Wednesday, Zuckerberg said Meta planned to continue throwing money at AI talent 'because we have conviction that superintelligence is going to improve every aspect of what we do.' Superintelligent AI would not just improve the company's business, he said, but would also become a personal tool that 'has the potential to begin an exciting new era of individual empowerment.' A Meta spokesperson declined to comment. Deitke did not respond to a request for comment. The job market for AI researchers has long had parallels to professional sports. In 2012, after three academics at the University at Toronto published a research paper describing a seminal AI system that could recognise objects like flowers and cars, they auctioned themselves off to the highest corporate bidder – Google – for US$44mil (RM188.21mil). That kicked off a race for talent across the tech industry. By 2014, Peter Lee, Microsoft's head of research, was likening the market to that for up-and-coming pro football players, many of whom were making about US$1mil (RM4.28mil) a year. 'Last year, the cost of a top, world-class deep learning expert was about the same as a top NFL quarterback prospect,' Lee told Bloomberg BusinessWeek at the time, referring to a type of AI specialist. 'The cost of that talent is pretty remarkable.' The leverage that AI researchers have in negotiating job terms has only increased since OpenAI released the ChatGPT chatbot in 2022, setting off a race to lead the technology. They have been aided by scarcity: Only a small pool of people have the technical know-how and experience to work on advanced artificial intelligence systems. That's because AI is built differently from traditional software. These systems learn by analysing enormous amounts of digital data. Few researchers have experience with the most advanced systems, which require giant pools of computing power available to only a handful of companies. The result has been a fresh talent war, with compensation soaring into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, from millions of dollars a year. In April, Zuckerberg – whose company was struggling to advance its AI research – dived in by sending personal messages to potential recruits, offering them larger and larger sums. His approach was similar to that of sports franchise owners, two Meta employees said. Even if the offers seemed absurd, if the new hires could help increase revenue by even half a percent – especially for a company that is closing in on a US$2 trillion (RM8.56 trillion) market capitalisation – it would be worth it, the people said. 'If I'm Zuck and I'm spending US$80bil (RM342.20bil) in one year on capital expenditures alone, is it worth kicking in another US$5bil (RM22.4bil) or more to acquire a truly world-class team to bring the company to the next level?' Hays said. 'The answer is obviously yes.' Meta's initial offers to engineers varied but hovered in the mid-tens of millions of dollars, three people familiar with the process said. The company also offered recruits something that was arguably more attractive than money: computing power. Some potential hires were told they would be allotted 30,000 graphical processing units, or GPUs, for their AI research, one of the people said. GPUs, which are powerful chips ideal for running the calculations that fuel AI, are highly coveted. Zuckerberg has hired with the help of the List, a document with the names of the top minds in AI, two people familiar with the effort said. Many on the List have three main qualifications: a doctorate in an AI-related field, experience at a top lab and contributions to AI research breakthroughs, one of the people said. The Wall Street Journal previously reported some details of the List. Some researchers on the List have created chat groups on Slack and Discord to discuss offers, two people in the groups said. When someone lands an offer, they can drop the details in the group chats and ask peers to weigh in. (AI is a tight-knit field where people often know one another.) They trade information about which companies to approach for another offer so they can build up their price, the people said. Working with friends can be just as important as the money. After a researcher joins a new lab, the first thing that person often does is try to recruit friends, two people familiar with the process said. The talent wars have started causing pain. OpenAI has changed its compensation structure to account for the shift in the market, employees at the company said, and is asking those approached by competitors to consult executives before immediately accepting offers. 'Are we countering? Yes,' Mark Chen, OpenAI's chief research officer, said at a company meeting this month, according to a recording reviewed by The New York Times. But he added that OpenAI had not matched Meta's offers because 'I personally think that in order to work here, you have to believe in the upside of OpenAI.' OpenAI declined to comment. (The Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement in relation to news content related to AI systems. The two companies have denied the claims.) Not all of Meta's overtures have succeeded. The company has been rebuffed by some researchers, two people said, partly because Zuckerberg's vision for artificial intelligence was unclear compared to those at other companies. Still, the frenzy has allowed even little-known researchers like Deitke to chart their own destinies. Deitke, who recently dropped out of a computer science PhD program at the University of Washington, had moonlighted at a Seattle AI lab called the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. There, he led the development of a project called Molmo, an AI chatbot that juggles images, sounds and text – the kind of system that Meta is trying to build. In November, Deitke and several Allen Institute colleagues founded Vercept, a startup that is trying to build AI agents, which can use other software on the Internet to autonomously perform tasks. With about 10 employees, Vercept has raised US$16.5mil (RM70.6mil) from investors such as former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt. Then came Deitke's back-and-forth with Zuckerberg. After Deitke accepted Meta's roughly US$250mil four-year offer, Vercept's CEO posted on social media, 'We look forward to joining Matt on his private island next year.' – © 2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times
The Star
13 hours ago
- The Star
Reddit surges as AI-driven ad strategy wins praise from Wall Street
The company logo for Reddit is displayed on a screen on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., May 15, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo (Reuters) -Reddit's shares jumped 15% before the bell on Friday after it reported quarterly results that exceeded Street expectations, boosting investor confidence in the platform's AI-based advertising tools and strong user engagement. The company's rosy outlook comes on the heels of similarly upbeat results from ad industry leaders such as Meta and Alphabet, underscoring a broader sector shift as advertisers gravitate towards platforms that provide artificial-intelligence tools to create more personalized campaigns. The company expects third-quarter revenue of between $535 million and $545 million, well above analysts' average estimate of $473 million, according to data compiled by LSEG. Reddit's focus on understanding user intent through authentic community conversations positions it to unlock new monetization opportunities, said Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell. "Being able to home in on exactly the kind of consumer who might be open to splurge on what a seller is offering has made sites like Reddit hugely popular with advertisers," Hewson said. Reddit's results, along with those of Google and Meta, signal the ad industry's resilience in the face of growing economic uncertainty brought on by shifting U.S. trade policy. The company's diverse ad offerings, including ads inserting brands directly within conversations on its subreddit discussions, remain attractive to marketers. Reddit's daily active unique visitors increased 21%, with analysts saying stabilizing daily active user trends are bolstering investor confidence in the platform's "long-term growth narrative". Despite variable Google-driven traffic posing a headwind in the second quarter, Reddit's U.S. daily active users held steady, expressing confidence that the company's unique content was valuable to both Google and searchers, analysts at Piper Sandler said. The company has been investing in new products, search capabilities and international expansion to offset inconsistent user traffic. Reddit is currently valued at a premium compared to its peers, trading at 74.57 times its projected earnings over the next 12 months, well above Pinterest's 19.39 and Snap's 27.54. If premarket gains hold, Reddit is set to add about $4 billion to its market cap. (Reporting by Kritika Lamba and Rashika Singh in Bengaluru; Editing by Pooja Desai)
The Star
18 hours ago
- The Star
Big Tech's acquihire deals face regulatory scrutiny, outgoing EU antitrust official says
People stand outside the Google offices in London, Britain, June 24, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso/File Photo BRUSSELS (Reuters) -Big Tech deals to acquire skills rather than major companies may soon come under the regulatory scrutiny they previously avoided, the outgoing head of the European Commission's antitrust unit said. Acquihires, in which Big Tech hires start-ups' founders and senior managers rather than acquire the companies, have been viewed by antitrust regulators as an attempt to evade merger rules. "It is important to preserve effective competition," Olivier Guersent, the director general at the competition unit, told Reuters in an interview earlier this week and ahead of his retirement on Thursday after a 33-year career tackling antitrust, cartels and financial services. He said the Commission was pushing national agencies with call-in powers to act. Such powers, enjoyed by Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Slovenia, Lithuania and Latvia, allow them to refer below-EU threshold mergers to the EU enforcer. "So we need to be patient and have enough member states that have call-in provisions and use them. But we are working on it. Within the ECN, we are actively encouraging it to do so," Guersent said. The European Competition Network is a forum for cooperation between the Commission and national regulators. Guersent said acquihires can be considered a merger as staff are part of a company's assets. Instances include Microsoft's $650 million deal to hire most of AI start-up Inflection's staff, including its co-founders and Google's poaching of employees from chatbot startup both last year. Last month Google hired staff members from AI code generation startup Windsurf. Amazon hired AI firm Adept's co-founders and some of its team in June last year, while Meta poached data-labelling startup Scale AI's CEO in June after taking a multi-billion dollar stake. Guersent, who spearheaded the EU's landmark Digital Markets Act that aims to curb Big Tech's power, said the results were encouraging. "It made a difference in fields in which decades of antitrust enforcement have not managed to make a difference," he said. "Did it change everything as much as we would have liked? Probably not. So that's why success is always relative," he said, contrasting Apple's changes to its closed ecosystem with Meta's pushback. (Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; editing by Barbara Lewis)
