As far as I can see out-of-order streaming is only half the described functionality – there is also HTML streaming & revamped DOM parsing which does not have the positive signals that out-of-order streaming does:
Yea we've been working with Mozilla and Apple on that one as well but they haven't responded to the standards position yet. I am sure that we'll reach something that's within consensus.
Why would the default language-level union keyword implementation force boxing? Seems like a crazy decision if it could just also implement the HasValue/TryGet itself and avoid it?
Hi there! C# language designer here, and one of the people working on unions.
Boxing is not something inherently to be avoided. It actually can work better in many (most?) use cases, and avoids a lot of problems that non-boxing approaches often cause (like tearing and copy costs).
It's try that the non boxing pattern could be implemented by us. And it's very reasonable that that is something we may do post this release. However, it's a non-trivial area. There's no one correct 'non-boxed' implementation. For example, do you have separate fields for all your unmanaged data? or do you have a blob of bytes that is large enough to align all your unmanaged data from teh largest set of of unmanaged fields, and you unsafe index into that?
Similar question for managed data. Do you have strongly typed fields for that data? Or do you attempt to use objects, to compact to as little space as possible? The former avoids casting costs. The latter allows you to minimize space. You can also potentially use unsafe casts. But those might introduce memory holes in tearing situations. etc. etc.
Because of this, i think the best outcome is to define the pattern (which we've done) and then use generators to allow you to control precisely the impl strategy, giving you all the bells and knobs you want to best fit your domain.
Yes. We do. And unions should work well in F#. It's designed to be a very easy pattern for all CLR languages and compilers to understand (including F#).
This one keeps crashing the browser after it reaches 100%. Safari/iOS, iPhone 13. I was able to navigate and use a few of the other ones linked to from the comments, though. Curious.
OS does seem ambitious, but it's a journey. And I was more interested in Nairobi,both as my residency and also because of Le Casa de Papel. I'm open to guidance to ideas. I mean it does do some things really well...and maybe some not so much. But when applied in the right industry, there is a lot of guidable power there.
I hear you loud and clear. And it is part fever dream that's slowly become real. So yah, just as you said it. For the LLM with the readmes, I will correct that best I can tonight(maybe tighter guided llm?) Or more of what I was thinking when I started this project.. how is the code though?
This might be worth it if Gemma4 E2B were a good model, but honestly it's absolutely useless in all our testing without further training and finetuning, and those aren't usecases that are fit for normal web browser use such that one would care to support it by adding such overly broad and expensive infrastructure to make it happen.
Gemma 4 E4B is a much better model, but it's too large to simply download and run everywhere.
IMHO, this is jumping the gun. Google's going through a lot of effort to release a model that will give everyone a very poor first impression of what on-device models are capable of, souring it for everyone for a long time afterwards. It would be better to wait until a smaller, better model ships before doing this.
Most users aren't even going to know that this is here. Web developers will expose this capability to the user. The devs will have to determine if the model is delivering what they need.
It's good to have something to work with if these Web APIs are going to be part of a standard. I suppose this means that ALL the browser vendors are likely to implement something
Mozilla makes great points. Even if the API is model agnostic, which it ought to be designed as from the very beginning to even be considered a spec, models can act vastly different.
Mozilla didn't say this but the user should at least be presented an option to choose which model (at least once) starting from day one, even if your browser only has one option available. That's assuming a universe where Google plans on actually being concerned about standards adoption.
> Google's going through a lot of effort to release a model that will give everyone a very poor first impression of what on-device models are capable of, souring it for everyone for a long time afterwards.
I wonder what that will do for the competition between hosted genai and local models...
Just tried this via the api; it seems to work best if reasoning is set to low, otherwise (especially GPT-5.5) like to “delve” into the matters discussed in the quoted text in order to logic out the author rather than just going off of stylistic measures.
But, yeah, I’m a nobody that has been blogging (very sporadically) publicly (and writing at length on forums like this one, with various handles loosely tied to my real identity) for twenty or more years (and by virtue of not trusting 3rd parties to host my content, most of it is actually still up) and Opus 4.6 (didn’t try 4.7) got me on the first try with just two paragraphs of an unpublished draft post (though it couldn’t come up with a convincing reason as to why it thought it was me).
Gemini and ChatGPT both clearly go off the subject matter rather than the stylistic clues; for the specific blog post I fed it which included mentions of “decoding” and “deciphering” and spoke of a tranche of legal documents (ok, it was the Epstein files, which I have been working on decoding), Gemini and ChatGPT both guessed “Molly White”, who seems to be a crypto-adjacent (currency not the real thing?) technical writer, and gave explanations that actually did explain why they arrived at that (wrong) answer.
So it seems Opus is indeed a bit special in this regard (and not limited to the latest 4.7 release)!
—-
What I would be more curious about is how well they can identify (open source) developers from their code. I’ve possibly publicly published more tokens in the form of OSS code than prose over the same period of time, in multiple languages and for completely different applications and environments. I’m sure there are style stylometric quirks associated with my coding style that persist across codebases, (though possibly somewhat stunted when contributing to others’ codebases to comply with the respective projects’ standards and styles) that should make it possible for an LLM that’s ingested code (and commits) to guess who’s who.
Edit:
Reading this self-same comment: I am apparently obsessed with parentheticals. Maybe my writing is more distinctive than I realized!
The explanation is very concerning. Lexical tidbits shouldn’t be learnt and reinforced across cross sections. Here, gremlin and goblin went from being selected for in the nerdy profile to being selected for in all profiles. The solution was easy: don’t mention goblins.
But what about when the playful profile reinforces usage of emoji and their usage creeps up in all other profiles accordingly? Ban emoji everywhere? Now do the same thing for other words, concepts, approaches? It doesn’t scale!
reply