@jyasskin @slightlyoff the reaction to https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1213#issuecomment-4347988313, and the responses on social media and Hacker News. What's the evidence for "strongly positive"? https://github.com/webmachinelearning/prompt-api/issues/74 was cited in the Intent to Ship.
Post
Replies:
6
@jaffathecake @slightlyoff Those aren't limited to developers, right? Was the reaction to the Prompt API more or less strong than the reaction to Firefox's AI features? I personally share the "hate everything to do with AI" sense, but I think the API owners would focus on developers actually building sites over random people with opinions on the internet.
If you look at https://api.github.com/repos/webmachinelearning/prompt-api/issues/74/reactions, all but one -1 is April 30 or later, a month after the I2S. That's an internet mob, not developer sentiment.
@jyasskin @jaffathecake In fairness to folks spotting the I2S late, I did too. I'm not sure how that cuts one way or the other on the substantive critiques, but it seems to me that not having +1s from API OWNERS outside Google when this was known to be controversial is at least a misread of the room.
@jyasskin @slightlyoff yes, plenty of the negative reaction to the prompt API is from web developers.
Do you feel the evidence given in the I2S justifies saying developers are "strongly positive" about this feature?
@jaffathecake @slightlyoff https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/iR6R7-nQeHI/m/9Sb7o12jAgAJ lists some more sources for developer feedback, but it looks mostly private, so it's all about whether you trust the team to grade their own homework, which we generally shouldn't. Even if it were public, I don't think I'd have the expertise to tell whether it was net positive, given the selection bias introduced by hosting a hackathon.
@jyasskin @slightlyoff the I2S points to https://github.com/webmachinelearning/prompt-api/blob/main/README.md#stakeholder-feedback for evidence which includes "developer surveys", which is a link to a survey that appears to have asked if developers would be happy with this as an "extension API". So yeah, there's something a little fishy going on.
"Misrepresentation" is one of the things disallowed in Google's ToU for the Prompt API. I guess, therefore, summarising the I2S with the Prompt API would be breaking the rules.
@jaffathecake @jyasskin Sorry for slow reply.
I don't credit much of the developer feedback I've seen, so to your first question, I think a tentative "maybe." That's part of what I'm arguing in the blink-dev thread, and why I think this needs, at a minimum, to go back to OT and bake. That is, hold Blink participants to the Blink Launch Process, rather than decry a vendor leading when others aren't offering alternatives.
I.e., value responsibility and honesty.
