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

[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"

[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.social]

@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.

[placebo@mastodon.ie]

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

[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.

[phl@mastodon.social]

@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 — and two other things. That's not exactly overwhelming support and excitement.