I'll continue to make calls to my models via API calls. lol
Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
221–230 of 248 posts
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#222I am against this. 1) This will be a new source of fingerprinting information and this is difficult to fake to fool fingerprinting scripts, so it can be abused for "device verification". There should be no ability to "verify" a browser, and anyone should be able to emulate any browser. This is the most important point, I thought Google people are smart enough to see it. 2) LLMs use lot of memory and CPU time, for man…
> There should be no ability to "verify" a browser, and anyone should be able to emulate any browser. Hard disagree. The AI industry has absolutely shredded the various anti-scraping and anti-botting social contracts that were in place prior to the covid pandemic. Like it's now common knowledge that robots.txt isn't a hard requirement and can be avoided entirely, for example. They have absolutely turned the open web…
You're looking at that pre-covid time with rose tinted glasses. Half the reason sites like reddit or twitter offered free/open APIs was to ensure that the bots were being as efficient as possible rather than hammering the sites (The other half was altruistic but that good will is a very small line item to an MBA). Scrappers got so much better at just going to what's presented to humans because these kinds of APIs are no longer common so they had to. So now the lazy option is to no longer check if a site offers an API, rather than to check if it did and save time / not worry about maintenance by coding for an API.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#223^ didnt realize who posted the opposition - this is Jake Archibald, a longtime googler on the Chrome team, now joining Mozilla and posting opposition to the Chrome API. no wonder the criticism is so well argued. most be a relief to not have to toe the party line on this one.
He's very familiar with standards-positions repos no doubt, and it reads like a typical defense against Google rolling something out without getting input. They don't suggest changes, they just try to throw out the whole thing. I think they might be hoping that if it ges thrown out, a collaborative effort will be formed to write if from scratch rather than start from the perspective of the Google Chrome team. I haven't seen it happen that way much, though, so I think it would be better if they just suggest specific changes to it rather than rejecting it.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#224The nice thing about open protocols is that we don't have to endorse or use one implementation over another, yet, somehow, the browser monopoly continues to be a standing dilemma. There are nice projects, like ungoogled chromium, tor, and many more, but I find the biggest issue is that there isn't a voice out there for the average person and a project that connects with the masses. I think another issue is that a lot…
It's somehow even worse when you compile your own browser. Want Spotify or Netflix? You need Widevine with attestation. Go pay Google. Your Browser Agent string isn't Chrome or Firefox? Enjoy endless Cloudflare captchas or just a 403 error.
As the browser you do not have to license Widevine. This is the responsibility of your OS vendor to provide and license a DRM solution. So for example when you build your browser on Mac it uses the Apple APIs to use FairPlay to handle Spotify.
It's unrealistic to expect every app on the system to have to deal with licensing DRM themselves.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#225I strongly believe LLMs and API harnesses of today simply are not at the technological stage where such an API makes sense in standards.
However if this needs to be done, then it needs to be a opt-in per site permission at the very least, and there should be a way to verify the identity of which model is being prompted (which extends to even minor tweaks made to system prompts).
As a user I need to be sure that I can't be fingerprinted by navigating to a random site and them using this API without my permission.
As a dev I need to know what model my users are using, so I have the option to craft specific prompts per model.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's exhausting having such reflexive thoughtless ragging anytime Chrome is mentioned. Oh no! Chrome is trying to enhance user agency again! Oh no! Chrome is trying to make the web better for end users! Mozilla's concerns aren't totally bogus, I'm not going to try to laugh them out of the room. But their pearl clutching & belly-aching about "oh no what if not all implementations of ai prompts work exactly the same" f…
It is non-obvious that adding an LLM to a web browser makes anything better for the web browser user.
I think you have to work real hard to cover your eyes to there being 100% no use, to regarding it as having no potential. Shame on anyone who is able to fool themselves into being so completely convinced.
If you are 99% against, that's at least some ability to judge reality. To have some ability to investigate & think. But you should be able to talk at least like you have some moorings, some connection with both sides of the discussion, imo, or you just aren't being serious.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
>" Anything that had an positive effect to the internet ended up in the graveyard years ago. " the example in my first comment, project zero, is still active today.
I think the issue might be that some people don’t actually mean “every” when they say “every”, and don’t recognize when they are speaking hyperbolically? Or, something like that?
Yes, That plus a tendency toward binary thinking, which is something many people on hn seem to heavily suffer from.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that if there were one, it would be subverted by powerful people with enormous amounts of cash to throw around. Firefox was the people's browser, then it suddenly wasn't. If you were some paragon of integrity with a ton of money, developed everything yourself, and refused all corruption, you would be called the Russian Chinese terrorist child-porn browser, denounced in Congress, and eventually arrested…
I guess one real life example is maybe Bitcoin? Would you say it managed to do that in finance successfully to some extent.
Bitcoin was subverted by powerful people and is no longer the people's currency.
Re: Mozilla's opposition to Chrome's Prompt API
#229Why is it that Google is fixated on bolting on ever more junk and turning browsers into Homermobiles[0] instead of putting those vast resources towards fixing the numerous structural weaknesses in everything that browsers are already capable of? Why not focus on foundational things that will improve quality of life for everything on the web platform ranging from static blogs to e-commerce to cutting edge web apps? Re…
Chrome is an operating system for Google. It gives them a way into corporate environments that run Windows far more easily than getting those companies to convert to ChromeOS or something. So they keep adding features because they want users to be able to do just about anything in there.