undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrefulgentis1y ago0 comments

Generally, for consumer use cases, it's best to A) do it locally, preserving some of the original web contract B) run JS to get actual content C) post-process to reduce inference cost D) get latency as low as possible

Then, as the article points out, the Big Guns making the LLMs are a big use case for this because they get a 10x speedup and can begin contemplating running JS.

It sounds like the people you've talked to are in a messy middle: no incentive to improve efficiency of loading pages, simply because there's something else in the system that has a fixed cost to it.

I'm not sure why that would rule out improving anything else, it doesn't seem they should be stuck doing nothing other than flailing around for cheaper LLM inference.

> I think your ram usage benchmark is deceptive. I'd expect a minimal browser to have much lower peak memory usage than chrome on a minimal website.

I'm a bit lost, the ram usage benchmark says its ~10x less, and you feel its deceptive because you'd expect ram usage to be less? Steelmanning: 10% of Chrome's usage is still too high?

0 comments

JoelEinbinder1y ago

The benchmark shows lower ram usage on a very simple demo website. I expect that if the benchmark ran on a random set of real websites, ram usage would not be meaningfully lower than Chrome. Happy to be impressed and wrong if it remains lower.

fbouvier1y ago

I believe it will be still significantly lower as we skip the graphical rendering.

But to validate that we need to increase our Web APIs coverage.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse