Can we change the title to a "Chrome extension ..." since this is not available for Firefox et al. ?
To convert the code from the GitHub repository you provided into a format that is compatible with Firefox, the following steps could be taken:
Replace instances of "chrome" with "browser" in the code. In the Chrome extension API, the "chrome" namespace is used to access various features and functionality, but in Firefox, this namespace is replaced with "browser". Therefore, all instances of "chrome" in the code would need to be replaced with "browser" to ensure that the code is compatible with Firefox.
Replace any references to Chrome-specific APIs with their Firefox equivalents. The Chrome extension API includes a number of features and APIs that are specific to Chrome, and these would need to be replaced with the corresponding Firefox APIs in order to ensure that the code is compatible with Firefox.
Update the manifest file to use the correct format for Firefox. The manifest file is a JSON file that specifies various metadata and configuration information for the extension, and the format of this file is different for Chrome and Firefox. Therefore, the manifest file in the code would need to be updated to use the correct format for Firefox.
Test the code to ensure that it is functioning properly in Firefox. Once the code has been converted and updated to be compatible with Firefox, it would be necessary to test the code to ensure that it is functioning properly in Firefox and that all of the desired features and functionality are working as expected. This may involve installing the extension in Firefox and testing it with a variety of inputs and scenarios to ensure that it is working properly.
Essentially:
1. Do the thing that is the first thing that is mentioned and that any first year student learning about thing hears about the thing.
2. Do some more complicated things in a hand-wavey manner that solves the problem.
3. Check to see the problem is solved. If it is not, do some more of the hand waving in step 2.
4. There may be other problems to check for in the future even if this solution works. Who knows! But I solved your problem.
If you are asking about aerospace engineering concepts at the level of a PhD thesis... it just hand-waves away problems in ways that, when pressed, it cannot give detail on.
So, as far an a algorithm goes, the problem becomes determining the computational complexity of the 'hand waving' part. For writing reactJS frontend APIs it seems like it's pretty damn low and thus the AI can spit out code and even fix bugs for you. For developing something that actually took a human 7+ years of undergrad, graduate, and PhD work to ascertain and work out.... no chance.
But yes that general algorithm works for all walks of life essentially and I keep getting a format like that for everything setup I ask about, as if it was trained on 'How to answer a hard technical question in these easy steps...' and it is sticking to that.
Would it be safe to assume the limiting factor with this or any algo of this type might always be availability of context/data, and these niche questions might always be an edge case?
Are there alglrithms that can reliably extrapolate "new" data/context that does not exist yet and is accurate IRL?
Sorry if my terminology or understanding is way off, I don't know much about this field.
There is something a bit more needed - Meta did a deep model recently with training specifically more on scientific papers, and it is able to 'talk the talk' better but unfortunately the 'understanding' just isn't there.
I think at the end of the day, programming languages are languages after all, thus work well with these tools, but there is something harder about scientific reasoning and interdisciplinary planning that is going to take something a bit more. This is the main goal of various research into bring symbolic methods back into interface with deep learning models.
I just pasted the manifest and the main script and asked it how to port it. It was basically a one-shot. Here's the port: https://github.com/unflxw/chat-gpt-google-extension
The README includes the conversation I had in order to port it. Close to zero thinking necessary. I have never worked on a browser extension before.
I actually wrote a few VS Code extensions recently starting from zero knowledge of the package formatting for them, and I wonder how much different my time spent doing it would have been if I would have just asked this bot to help. There was a lot of regex involved and hell just using chatGPT to explain to me some of the ways I could be matching strings with whatever format of regex tmLanguage uses would have probably saved me a lot of googling.
ChatGPT likes mimicking its own previous style, so after it ended its first message with a paragraph like "Overall, porting a Firefox extension to Chrome is doable, but it requires knowledge of the differences...", it kept closing its following messages with similar ending summaries.
The one bit where I refer to it as "nonsensical modification suggestions" was where it suggested that, in addition to changing `chrome.runtime.connect()` to `browser.runtime.connect()`, it told me that:
- I needed to use `document.querySelector`, because Firefox does not support `document.getElementByID` (very clearly not true if you're familiar with DOM APIs)
- I needed to change `classList.add` to `classList.add`, because Chrome supports `classList.add`, but Firefox supports `classList.add` instead (yes those are the exact same thing)
It did make me think for a moment: "what, really, Firefox does not support `getElementByID`? wait, no, of course not, the bot's just saying words."
In this case, it did not get me stuck debugging anything. In other conversations, where I've tried to "play dumb" and follow exactly what it tells me to do, it has sent me down the wrong path. But if you keep telling it "no, that's not working, how can I solve <original problem>", or you give it additional information, it usually corrects course.
I've also seen it say, "well, I don't know what's going on, but the problem must be around this line of code, insert a console log here to see what's going on with this specific value", which was actually good debugging advice, and then you can paste the output of the console log to it, and it takes it into account.
(These are just examples of things, surely it would suggest FCs for React at this point)
The README includes the conversation I had in order to port it. Close to zero thinking necessary. I have never worked on a browser extension before.
Maybe this could be used on VSCode as a pair programming partner.