4 ms·

LLM's are not useful enough to me to want them integrated with my daily-drivers (web browser, email client, etc.) - so this is a great take & one that I persona

LLM's are not useful enough to me to want them integrated with my daily-drivers (web browser, email client, etc.) - so this is a great take & one that I personally identify with.

imiric 2y ago
I don't want them in my browser either, but if implemented correctly, it would just be another feature you wouldn't use. So Vivaldi deliberately not having this feature only hurts people who _would_ find it useful, and thus the adoption of their browser. This is not a good strategic decision.
- trog 2y ago
  The opportunity cost of it though, like every major feature decision in a browser, is presumably very significant. What could they be doing that their users actually want? As a dyed in the wool Firefox user, I am of course very used to disappointment about how they direct their development effort. There are a million things I'd rather see them work on than strapping in an LLM. I don't know much about the Vivaldi community but I assume they took this into account when making this decision.
- Dr4kn 2y ago
  LLMs are difficult to run and very few people have the hardware to run a big enough model to be useful. This means you have to integrate LLMs over an API, which costs you money. LLMs are to expensive for a free browser to just give away free usage. Implementing APIs that you can login with an account and use a specific LLM is a lot of work and difficult to communicate the privacy nightmare that comes with sending that data to some LLM. You don't have to cater to every user. Focusing on things you do better for a huge portion of potential users is a much better decision. If features turn out to be so useful that everyone needs to integrate them to not be left behind you have to do it. LLMs are not there yet. They are to unreliable, expensive and difficult to run locally. In a few years when most users might be able to run decent models locally you can reevaluate that decision
- timeon 2y ago
  Anyone who wants that feature can choose from number of other chrome-based browsers.
pyeri 2y ago
This very much. I think folks should center around a couple of dedicated LLM web apps like chatgpt.com (plus maybe gemini.google.com for a second opinion) but that should be it. If every company and their dog started churning out their own LLM as a business or revenue model, one can easily see the supply overwhelming demand here apart from many other problems.
- benbristow 2y ago
  > If every company and their dog started churning out their own LLM as a business or revenue model, one can easily see the supply overwhelming demand here apart from many other problems. This certainly seems the case on the iOS/Play stores. Primary AI apps from the big hitters (OpenAI/Gemini/Copilot etc.) but then loads of knock-off ones from those riding the AI hype train. All the knockoffs being basically wrappers around APIs from the big hitters with ads/in-app purchases.

LLM's are not useful enough to me to want them integrated with my daily-drivers (web browser, email client, etc.) - so this is a great take & one that I personally identify with.

imiric 2y ago

I don't want them in my browser either, but if implemented correctly, it would just be another feature you wouldn't use. So Vivaldi deliberately not having this feature only hurts people who _would_ find it useful, and thus the adoption of their browser. This is not a good strategic decision.

trog 2y ago
The opportunity cost of it though, like every major feature decision in a browser, is presumably very significant. What could they be doing that their users actually want? As a dyed in the wool Firefox user, I am of course very used to disappointment about how they direct their development effort. There are a million things I'd rather see them work on than strapping in an LLM. I don't know much about the Vivaldi community but I assume they took this into account when making this decision.
Dr4kn 2y ago
LLMs are difficult to run and very few people have the hardware to run a big enough model to be useful. This means you have to integrate LLMs over an API, which costs you money. LLMs are to expensive for a free browser to just give away free usage. Implementing APIs that you can login with an account and use a specific LLM is a lot of work and difficult to communicate the privacy nightmare that comes with sending that data to some LLM. You don't have to cater to every user. Focusing on things you do better for a huge portion of potential users is a much better decision. If features turn out to be so useful that everyone needs to integrate them to not be left behind you have to do it. LLMs are not there yet. They are to unreliable, expensive and difficult to run locally. In a few years when most users might be able to run decent models locally you can reevaluate that decision
timeon 2y ago
Anyone who wants that feature can choose from number of other chrome-based browsers.

pyeri 2y ago

This very much. I think folks should center around a couple of dedicated LLM web apps like chatgpt.com (plus maybe gemini.google.com for a second opinion) but that should be it. If every company and their dog started churning out their own LLM as a business or revenue model, one can easily see the supply overwhelming demand here apart from many other problems.

benbristow 2y ago
> If every company and their dog started churning out their own LLM as a business or revenue model, one can easily see the supply overwhelming demand here apart from many other problems. This certainly seems the case on the iOS/Play stores. Primary AI apps from the big hitters (OpenAI/Gemini/Copilot etc.) but then loads of knock-off ones from those riding the AI hype train. All the knockoffs being basically wrappers around APIs from the big hitters with ads/in-app purchases.