So the next anti trust case for the EU.
Chrome is clearly dominating the browser market and now they try to abuse that (again)
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" feels fucking tired and weak sauce to me.
This post really doesn't deserve our attention, my my view. But I'd challenge the haters to at least try to connect their reflexive hate meaningfully to what the topic at hand actually is, to provide something worth considering in some way. But that I think asks too much, for what posts like this seek: merely to inflame the world.
Maybe you shouldn't reflexivly defend Chrome when they clearly abuse their market leading position to push their own AI.
We had WebSQL which defactor relied on a specific DB implementation, sqlite, and I suspect it also essentially couldn't be updated because people relied on the quirks of a specific version of sqlite.
But there's no suggestion or idea, no way to specify our way out of this one.
And the idea of providing too much guidance because one model has quirks? That seems so so very so-what. Oh no we over-prompted isn't zero impact. But it usually isn't that cataclysmic. I feel like this is such a 0.001% gripe, and to hold up all agency on the web because of this is unbecoming. Is ridiculous.
I know browsers wanted to get rid of websql but generally I thought the consensus was websql was disliked generally by vendors. It wasn't that they wanted a different websql: they didn't want a websql at all, period. The quirks weren't the problem.
Again though, fucking help! Fine, there are problems. I personally think this is some absurd fucking ridiculous mountains out of mole hills and ya'll are being absurd over this. Absurd. But if this was a discussion where there were interesting future directions to look to, that we could pursue and try to follow up on? Ok! Fine! Have your pound of flesh maybe or maybe it really does pay out! But it is some conservative Fear Uncertainty and Doubt soul rotting evil to obstruct & deny while making qualifications that are utterly unobtainable.
Meanwhile the rest of the software world is going to keep moving. The web is just going to be colossal negatively impacted by this impossible "it must be perfect" impasse created for no reason with no expectations of resolvability, in spite of the base premise of giving users access to their agents being an obvious direct and clear improvement over every other possibility by country miles.
Your fixated bias shows that your not willing to shuffle. Think out of the box for once.
No one is ruling out that Google is trying to enhance the internet, but at the same them rather it making positive and open it enables & restricts the next wave of generational internet.
How am I suppose to develop a uniformed application when I have to follow the rules of Google. Why should I have to, because I would be forced to.
It seems pretty basic to me that yes I should be able to have some agentic experiences working for me.
The Mozilla line here is that this is bad because different people might have different agents and that is intolerable, is a risk.
It's hiding in a cave to avoid seeing your own shadow idiotic.
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.
It is clear this can be done without being part of the standard as is shown by the fact that it is already done. So it has no place in the standard.
This doesn't make any sense. And it's far less ideal than using already on device models, that are better tailored to the device's hardware, and that may be already resident.
Good things should be made broadly available. We didn't need jquery before it came along, we could just do the things. But jQuery set a standard. And in turn much of what it did got sent into improvements to query selector. Your model of standardize only the minimum sounds like suicide for the web and I think it's dreadful, and I'm glad such dour sad views have no standing.