"webp" sounds like it's specifically targeted to the web. If I want to save an image in a certain file format, I am not going to chose the one that sounds like it's meant for deployment in web browsers, with potentially low quality for faster transfer.

While that might not be what WebP does, it is what it implies to regular users.

> Anthropic did not get much bite on Fable at its original pricing

I stopped using Fable because it kept stopping itself due to safeguards.

Do you pay to get told no by Fable?

Ironically when we did compression quality evaluations, me and my colleague found that PSNR way better matches our perception of quality, than LPIPS or FLIP. Our assumption is that LPIPS is biased towards quality artifacts that is not representative of compression quality artifacts.

> And OpneGL is worse

I disagree. OpenGL is truly bad, but there is no API in this world as bad as Vulkan.

Shaders aren't the issue with Vulkan. Writing 50 lines of code for things that should be one-liners is.

Ironically, the Vulkan discord always complains about the bad support of Vulkan on mobile devices, and how OpenGL ES is still better supported.

Google has moved Android to having only Vulkan, with OpenGL ES on top via Angle, exactly to force OEMs to actually care about Vulkan support.

Until now it has been pretty much only usable on Google and Samsung phones.

> Personally, I would recommend WebGPU to people who want to get into graphics programming.

Unfortunately WebGPU is like 5 years behind OpenGL 4.6, which is already 8 years old. WebGPU is pretty ancient.

WebGPU only got started in 2021, so Im not sure what you mean. Could you explain? (Or are you thinking of WebGL?)

WebGPU is newer, but lacks modern functionality because it was made to support ancient smartphones. That's great if you want to support ancient smartphones, but not if you want to utilize modern desktop GPUs.

Thanks, that makes sense

Vulkan is garbage. It's completely needlessly overengineered. Like, you literally have to write 50 lines of code just to allocate GPU memory, which is a one-liner in other APIs like CUDA. These 50 lines include things like heap type shopping and usage flags, that are entirely pointless for modern desktop GPUs. I know there is VMA, but that is a poorly made bandaid over a badly designed API, and barely addresses one out of 100 UX issues with Vulkan. There is a reason so many are sticking with OpenGL. OpenGL is fairly bad, but at least it isn't Vulkan.

But I can agree with CUDA. CUDA is great, in a large part because it actually offers an easy to use API.

WebGPU has the issue that feature/capability-wise it is essentially 5 years behind OpenGL 4.6, which came out 8 years ago. And the other downside being that it adopted old Vulkan concepts that even Vulkan started to ditch, like render passes and static pipelines.

For beginners that's irrelevant. WebGPU has more than enough features for beginners to learn about graphics programming. Not just that, once you're used to WebGPU, going to Vulkan will be much easier than the transition from OpenGL.

I wouldnt recommend anyone going to Vulkan, though. It's pretty much the worst graphics API out there, and WebGPU is mimicking outdated Vulkan design decisions that even Vulkan is currently outphasing, like render passes and static pipelines.

Without any sort of proper debugging tools.