If that was a good argument to not support an LLM feature, then it would be a reason to not add it to any platform API. And yet, it has been added to numerous platforms already.

Different models are just a core aspect of how the technology works.

It's like a canvas can have different possible width and height depending on the device or it's orientation. Or the geolocation API giving more or less accuracy depending on the device. Or Speech Synthesis sounding different depending on the device.

This is really just anti-AI sentiment rather than being constructive.

For now, it needs a permissions UI if it doesn't already have one. And maybe at some point they will add a n IQ level like low, medium, high or something. But developers are going to rely on the specific model 90% of the time anyway if they care about it.

What's going to change is really just that the AI hatred will die down some as people realize how much it helps them, and people will realize not having this feature in Firefox is a failure for personal data autonomy.

And the TOU that are related in Chrome being problematic is an argument FOR Firefox to add this feature, without problematic model terms.

The important part was the following paragraph(s) that explained why this coupling is a compelling problem. It's not the same as just having a platform API.

We have different gps reliability per device because they have actual hardware doing that.

Why exactly couldn't models, iq levels, tuning and system prompts be interchangeable in an API for this? Why not let users and devs pick which model to bring or point to one they're paying for, or what have you?

I don't see a world where 90 percent of users of this API pick the same underlying model. It doesn't seem like there's any kind of centralization with ai like that yet.