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

[toldtheworld@mastodon.social]

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

[firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social]

@toldtheworld @Aedius yep, "AI Controls" landed in Firefox 148 which lets you hide all AI entry points, for current and future AI feature. It also disables any previously opted-into AI features.

[kjv@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@firefoxwebdevs
So I had set AI Afeatures in config plans to false before the "AI controls" update. Does diabling AI controls set all AI positive flags to false ?

[firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social]

@kjv the about:config options around this weren't historically reliable (it's just a key-value store) whereas AI Controls is the officially support way to control this stuff.

[a1ba@suya.place]

@firefoxwebdevs but can you really oppose your sugar daddy

[firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social]

@a1ba sure looks like it

[hj@shigusegubu.club]

@firefoxwebdevs a new episode of mozilla once again does a PR stunt instead of developing their browser

[a1ba@suya.place]

@firefoxwebdevs hope so

[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.

[north@xn--8r9a.com]

@firefoxwebdevs that's rich

[firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social]

@xela it's possible an LLM API will come along that solves the issues, but yeah… 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.

[marc_eu@veganism.social]

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

[stux@mstdn.social]

@marc_eu @firefoxwebdevs Yes, AI API

[wcbdata@vis.social]

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

[marc_eu@veganism.social]

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

[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?".
But that's only my interpretation, of course.

[firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social]

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

[aedius@lavraievie.social]

@toldtheworld @firefoxwebdevs

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

[firefoxwebdevs@mastodon.social]

@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.

[scudo@antani.cyou]

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