It's not so much that people want to run the models in the browser. They want to be able to write and publish one desktop app that e.g. runs a LLaMA quality model and runs decently across the hundreds of different GPUs that exist on their users' machines.

So it's more of a CUDA alternative for building desktop apps that are GPU powered?

Nowhere near CUDA. Maybe OpenCL and Metal replacement because nobody bothers to support them, so just a fallback option for AMD and ARM chips.

So then:

If your app needs CUDA, you'd need to write it in CUDA.

If you don't need CUDA, you'd write it for WebGPU instead?

If you benefit from CUDA but don't strictly require it, then you can write it in CUDA with a WebGPU fallback.

Is that right?

I think you only write WebGPU code if you are using JS or Rust for your hobby project

HN was similarly excited about Vulkan, but this is newer.

This fixes the main problem with Vulkan, which is that there were no big tech companies pushing them. WebGPU has Apple, Google and Microsoft all committing to support it in their browser/OS.

Not quite. The main problem with Vulkan is, as the blog post goes into, one of usability. Vulkan isn't designed for end developers to use, it's designed for middleware vendors to use. Vulkan is already being pushed by many major big tech companies include Google, Nvidia, AMD, etc... It's really only Apple that's a problem here.

WebGPU is basically a middleware for those that just want to use graphics, not all of unity, unreal, etc...

The Vulkan situation on Apple is incredibly funny, especially once you look at the landscape of gaming. There's games out there (I believe Final Fantasy XIV is like this) where the official Mac client runs in wine, using a DirectX -> Vulkan translation layer, on top of a Vulkan -> Metal translation layer.

One can go that way, or use one of the middleware engines that has support for Metal for several years now.

There is no Vulkan on game consoles, those little devices HN keeps forgeting about.

Yes, the Switch supports Vulkan alongside OpenGL 4.6, but if one wants the full power of the games console, the name of the game is NVN.

As for Apple, all relevant middleware has support for Metal.

I'm not clear this is accurate. More, I'm not sure these are the right companies to push?

Many companies have tried to unseat Nvidia. Many of them big companies. There is no magic in the ones you named. Worse, I'm not clear that Google will bring stability to the project. Such that I see little reason to be overly excited.

Happy to be proven wrong.

> because users won't need to download a desktop app to do so

Not only that, WebGPU is OS and hardware neutral. It'll work regardless of what machine you have. Currently it's Nvidia or get lost.

If this is something users actually care about, wouldn't Vulkan AI be a big deal? It has way more features for AI than WebGPU will likely ever have, and it's widely available today.

The blog spends a lot of time pointing out that it is not, in fact, widely available today in any practical sense.

It spends a little time on the topic, and imho doesn't argue the point very well.

It points out that MoltenVK doesn't work very well, and I agree, although I think it's questionable whether the Molten-compatible subset is worse than WebGPU or not.

It says that Vulkan has driver issues on Linuxes, but provides no citations for that, and in my experiences, Vulkan drivers and developer tools have been the best for Linux, overall (my experience is limited to Nvidia, so maybe that's why, Idk).