Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform.

Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
47 Posts 25 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

    @a1ba sure looks like it

    a1ba@suya.placeA This user is from outside of this forum
    a1ba@suya.placeA This user is from outside of this forum
    a1ba@suya.place
    wrote last edited by
    #16
    @firefoxwebdevs hope so
    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

      Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform. At Mozilla, we oppose this API.

      We feel it has a large interoperability risk, and Google imposing T&Cs on a web API sets a dangerous precedent.

      Full details: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#issuecomment-4347988313

      xela@troet.cafeX This user is from outside of this forum
      xela@troet.cafeX This user is from outside of this forum
      xela@troet.cafe
      wrote last edited by
      #17

      @firefoxwebdevs wow, so odd. Does an LLM prompt API even belong into a browser? I seriously doubt it.

      That it gets pushed into Chrome - no wonder. The company behind it pushes "AI" into everything, no matter what.

      The dev concerns (GH thread) seem valid, BTW.

      From a user's perspective, I'm only begging to stick with actual browser tasks (render websites safely and fast, and keep an eye on cpu/ram usage).

      Not going all nuts on every hype is a quality characteristic nowadays.

      firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

        Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform. At Mozilla, we oppose this API.

        We feel it has a large interoperability risk, and Google imposing T&Cs on a web API sets a dangerous precedent.

        Full details: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#issuecomment-4347988313

        north@xn--8r9a.comN This user is from outside of this forum
        north@xn--8r9a.comN This user is from outside of this forum
        north@xn--8r9a.com
        wrote last edited by
        #18

        @firefoxwebdevs that's rich

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • xela@troet.cafeX xela@troet.cafe

          @firefoxwebdevs wow, so odd. Does an LLM prompt API even belong into a browser? I seriously doubt it.

          That it gets pushed into Chrome - no wonder. The company behind it pushes "AI" into everything, no matter what.

          The dev concerns (GH thread) seem valid, BTW.

          From a user's perspective, I'm only begging to stick with actual browser tasks (render websites safely and fast, and keep an eye on cpu/ram usage).

          Not going all nuts on every hype is a quality characteristic nowadays.

          firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
          firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
          firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social
          wrote last edited by
          #19

          @xela it's possible an LLM API will come along that solves the issues, but yeahโ€ฆ it seems really tricky. The open ended nature of it will always be a huge interop problem.

          If the use-cases are tightened, e.g. translation, the problem is reduced.

          xela@troet.cafeX 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • stux@mstdn.socialS stux@mstdn.social

            @firefoxwebdevs Whahaha good joke

            Mozilla opposes AI? Yeah right ๐Ÿ˜†

            marc_eu@veganism.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
            marc_eu@veganism.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
            marc_eu@veganism.social
            wrote last edited by
            #20

            @stux @firefoxwebdevs
            Read first before you react. Mozilla opposes the *API*.

            stux@mstdn.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • marc_eu@veganism.socialM marc_eu@veganism.social

              @stux @firefoxwebdevs
              Read first before you react. Mozilla opposes the *API*.

              stux@mstdn.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              stux@mstdn.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              stux@mstdn.social
              wrote last edited by
              #21

              @marc_eu @firefoxwebdevs Yes, AI API

              marc_eu@veganism.socialM placebo@mastodon.ieP 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

                Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform. At Mozilla, we oppose this API.

                We feel it has a large interoperability risk, and Google imposing T&Cs on a web API sets a dangerous precedent.

                Full details: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#issuecomment-4347988313

                wcbdata@vis.socialW This user is from outside of this forum
                wcbdata@vis.socialW This user is from outside of this forum
                wcbdata@vis.social
                wrote last edited by
                #22

                @firefoxwebdevs I'm assuming @Vivaldi will disable the whole thing, yes?

                firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF techienotnetie@social.vivaldi.netT 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • stux@mstdn.socialS stux@mstdn.social

                  @marc_eu @firefoxwebdevs Yes, AI API

                  marc_eu@veganism.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                  marc_eu@veganism.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                  marc_eu@veganism.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #23

                  @stux @firefoxwebdevs
                  En dus is de reactie van Mozilla niet zo gek?

                  yokhai@gaygeek.socialY 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

                    @xela it's possible an LLM API will come along that solves the issues, but yeahโ€ฆ it seems really tricky. The open ended nature of it will always be a huge interop problem.

                    If the use-cases are tightened, e.g. translation, the problem is reduced.

                    xela@troet.cafeX This user is from outside of this forum
                    xela@troet.cafeX This user is from outside of this forum
                    xela@troet.cafe
                    wrote last edited by
                    #24

                    @firefoxwebdevs honestly, currently I couldn't think of any "magical twist", that makes the problems (model neutrality, legal pitfalls) go away.

                    Our perspectives seem to differ a bit - to me yours reads like
                    "is it technically feasible, is it fun to implement?"
                    while mine's rather
                    "do I want that in my browser and which problem does that solve, anyway?". ๐Ÿ˜
                    But that's only my interpretation, of course. ๐Ÿ˜น

                    firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • wcbdata@vis.socialW wcbdata@vis.social

                      @firefoxwebdevs I'm assuming @Vivaldi will disable the whole thing, yes?

                      firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                      firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                      firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #25

                      @wcbdata @Vivaldi tagging the unimpeachable @brucelawson to answer that one.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • toldtheworld@mastodon.socialT toldtheworld@mastodon.social

                        @Aedius @firefoxwebdevs but doesn't Firefox already allow us to disable AI features?

                        aedius@lavraievie.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                        aedius@lavraievie.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                        aedius@lavraievie.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #26

                        @toldtheworld @firefoxwebdevs

                        Yes but it mean that they still burn money for crap.

                        toldtheworld@mastodon.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • xela@troet.cafeX xela@troet.cafe

                          @firefoxwebdevs honestly, currently I couldn't think of any "magical twist", that makes the problems (model neutrality, legal pitfalls) go away.

                          Our perspectives seem to differ a bit - to me yours reads like
                          "is it technically feasible, is it fun to implement?"
                          while mine's rather
                          "do I want that in my browser and which problem does that solve, anyway?". ๐Ÿ˜
                          But that's only my interpretation, of course. ๐Ÿ˜น

                          firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                          firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                          firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #27

                          @xela eh I'd say my view is "is this good for the web?", and I don't think this API is. If the technical issues were sorted, then maybe it's worth another look, but like I said in the standards position, I think developer desire of this API is being massively overstated by Google.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

                            Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform. At Mozilla, we oppose this API.

                            We feel it has a large interoperability risk, and Google imposing T&Cs on a web API sets a dangerous precedent.

                            Full details: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#issuecomment-4347988313

                            scudo@antani.cyouS This user is from outside of this forum
                            scudo@antani.cyouS This user is from outside of this forum
                            scudo@antani.cyou
                            wrote last edited by
                            #28

                            @firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social the same guys that have put AI in Firefox said "we won't put AI in Firefox"

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • aedius@lavraievie.socialA aedius@lavraievie.social

                              @toldtheworld @firefoxwebdevs

                              Yes but it mean that they still burn money for crap.

                              toldtheworld@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                              toldtheworld@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                              toldtheworld@mastodon.social
                              wrote last edited by
                              #29

                              @Aedius @firefoxwebdevs ah, you mean during development? I suppose there's no good alternative right now; I can't imagine a browser developer not using LLMs for coding. The biggest problem I see arises from lack of transparency on energy usage (and environmental impact) on the part of providers. Blaming them would be more productive. If we can get them to report the true impact of each inference request, I'm pretty sure people will freak out and slow down.

                              aedius@lavraievie.socialA 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • toldtheworld@mastodon.socialT toldtheworld@mastodon.social

                                @Aedius @firefoxwebdevs ah, you mean during development? I suppose there's no good alternative right now; I can't imagine a browser developer not using LLMs for coding. The biggest problem I see arises from lack of transparency on energy usage (and environmental impact) on the part of providers. Blaming them would be more productive. If we can get them to report the true impact of each inference request, I'm pretty sure people will freak out and slow down.

                                aedius@lavraievie.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                                aedius@lavraievie.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                                aedius@lavraievie.social
                                wrote last edited by
                                #30

                                @toldtheworld @firefoxwebdevs

                                The alternative is to continue the human development, lower the entry level for contribution.

                                LLM development is producing technical debt faster than ever before.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • stux@mstdn.socialS stux@mstdn.social

                                  @marc_eu @firefoxwebdevs Yes, AI API

                                  placebo@mastodon.ieP This user is from outside of this forum
                                  placebo@mastodon.ieP This user is from outside of this forum
                                  placebo@mastodon.ie
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #31

                                  @stux @marc_eu @firefoxwebdevs if only you guys knew how many times I typed openai instead of openapi and vice versa

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • marc_eu@veganism.socialM marc_eu@veganism.social

                                    @stux @firefoxwebdevs
                                    En dus is de reactie van Mozilla niet zo gek?

                                    yokhai@gaygeek.socialY This user is from outside of this forum
                                    yokhai@gaygeek.socialY This user is from outside of this forum
                                    yokhai@gaygeek.social
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #32

                                    @marc_eu if not for the fact that Mozilla ships Firefox with AI chatbots despite a majority of people telling them, "don't do that"...this *would* have been a noble cause.

                                    marc_eu@veganism.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

                                      @valpackett yeah, "strongly positive" seems so misrepresentative that it'd break Google's T&C's if it was fed to the Prompt API.

                                      phl@mastodon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      phl@mastodon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      phl@mastodon.social
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #33

                                      @firefoxwebdevs @valpackett Incidentally that links to a github md file which itself says merely positive and links further to an issue with ONE comment, and a blog that doesn't exist โ€” and two other things. That's not exactly overwhelming support and excitement.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • yokhai@gaygeek.socialY yokhai@gaygeek.social

                                        @marc_eu if not for the fact that Mozilla ships Firefox with AI chatbots despite a majority of people telling them, "don't do that"...this *would* have been a noble cause.

                                        marc_eu@veganism.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        marc_eu@veganism.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        marc_eu@veganism.social
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #34

                                        @yokhai
                                        Yeah, but in all fairness, they're focusing on only local LLM's and, more importantly they implemented a AI kill switch that turns every AI functionality off and is enabled (= no AI) by default.

                                        yoasif@mastodon.socialY 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.socialF firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social

                                          Chrome looks set to ship an LLM Prompt API to the web platform. At Mozilla, we oppose this API.

                                          We feel it has a large interoperability risk, and Google imposing T&Cs on a web API sets a dangerous precedent.

                                          Full details: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#issuecomment-4347988313

                                          rejzor@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                          rejzor@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                          rejzor@mastodon.social
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #35

                                          @firefoxwebdevs Thing is, Google doesn't care what anyone thinks, especially not Mozilla unfortunately because they own the internet with Chrome. And they push shit that entirely benefits them and not the internet as ecosystem.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups