Unless you're running every origin in a different instance, I wouldn't use this as a daily driver, since a site would only need to find a renderer vuln to be able to read the rest of your cookies as multiprocess isolation is disabled here

It is required in order to yield the event loop and force an implicit sync on OffscreenCanvas. There is technically a slower workaround for this but JSPI is coming soon anyway to firefox 153 and safari 27.

$25k of tokens, closer to 30 billion I believe. It only took a few days to actually get the engine up, the hard parts where most of the effort was spent was squeezing out performance and increasing stability, as well as attempting the JIT.

Firefox was chosen because its single-process support was in a better place than chromium/blink. WebKit is also possible, it was done by a friend of mine earlier https://github.com/theogbob/WebkitWasm

ah, i misunderstood. that seemed way too low in terms of actual tokens lol. i'll log off now. interesting details and didn't know about WebkitWasm. hope to read more soon.

We also plan on adding extension support to https://github.com/HeyPuter/browser.js soon, which should hopefully cover use cases like that as well without the full overhead

Oh and for anyone asking, you can run firefox-wasm inside firefox-wasm inside firefox! I only got this to load once though since it gets pretty unstable at that level.

Yo dawg I heard you like Firefox.

I couldn't get it to work. The whole thing froze.

Its the first thing I tried as well :D

In the past we had "friends" for this

It took me less than a minute on the site to run into factually wrong information, broken citations, etc. Cannot imagine rotting my brain with knowingly bad information for over 2 hours

I’ve run into the exact same set of issues on Wikipedia.

Did you fix them?

This is sometimes hard when the editors keep on reversing edits which attempt to fix those errors. It will be interesting to see how Grokipedia - a bad name, surely they can come up with something better - deals with this.

I often come across out-of-place or clearly ideologically driven content on Wikipedia and normally just leave this alone - I have better things to do with my limited time than to fight edit wars with activist editors. Having said that I did a number of experiments some 5 years ago with editing Wikipedia where I removed clearly ideologically driven sections out of articles where those sections really had no place. One of these experiments consisted of removing sections about ´queer politics and queer viewpoints' from articles about popular cartoon characters. These sections - often spanning several paragraphs - were inserted relatively recently into the articles and were nothing more than attempts to use those articles to push a 'queer' viewpoint on the subject matter and as such not relevant for a general purpose encyclopedia. I commented my edits with a reference to the NPOV rules. My edits were reversed without comment. I reversed the reversion with the remark to either explain the reversion of leave the edits in place and was reversed again, no comments. I reversed again with an invitation to discuss the edits on the Talk pages which was not accepted while my edits were reversed again. This continued for a while with different editors reversing my edits and accusations of vandalism. Looking through the 'contribs' section for the users responsible for adding the irrelevant content showed they were doing this to hundreds of articles. I just checked and noticed the same individuals are still actively adding their 'queer perspectives' to articles where such perspectives are not relevant for a general-purpose encyclopedia.

Do you happen to remember any of the articles where you performed this experiment? I ask because specifically around 5 years ago, I know there were a number of cartoons where the creators intentionally wrote characters with queer representation in mind (She-Ra is the first to come to mind). So, if the sections you were removing had been properly cited and relevant to the actual series, then the removal for being "nothing more than attempts to use those articles to push a 'queer' viewpoint on the subject matter" probably did not represent a neutral viewpoint.

Of course, this depends on you opening up your research to some peer review.

Correct. That's the main reason I dove into reading subjects I was already knowledgeable of to see how it did.

Suggesting that people being able to make mistakes means that there's no qualitative and quantitative difference in how AI makes mistakes is either disingenuous or stupid. I don't know which place you're coming from or what kind of gotcha you think you pulled, but it doesn't create a strong argument either way.

Maybe he meant that the information was consistently incorrect, which was entertaining..

Your example proxies the console object, the intended way in this case is to make a proxy from the log function itself and use the apply hook

toString will be called on the Proxy and not your hook so it won't reveal anything

D'oh! You are correct :-) Good catch and thanks for teaching me something!

could be very useful for my work, nice to see

I've been basically doing this for years via a private mastodon instance. Very nice to see!