SSVM VS rippled-hooks

WasmEdge GitHub address: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge.

I see that they recently changed the intro of WasmEdge on Github [1] to " WasmEdge is the easiest and fastest way to run LLMs on your own devices. "

Since it's a wasm runtime capable of many things I find bizarre that they now start describing it with a ultra-specific use case

- [1] https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge

Mmm…

The wasm-nn that this relies on (https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-nn) is a proposal that relies of arbitrary plugin backends sending arbitrarily chunks to some vendor implementation. The api is literally like set input, compute, set output.

…and that is totally non portable.

The reason this works, is because it’s relying on the abstraction already implemented in llama.cpp that allows it to take a gguf model and map it to multiple hardware targets,which you can see has been lifted here: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/tree/master/plugins/was...

So..

> Developers can refer to this project to write their machine learning application in a high-level language using the bindings, compile it to WebAssembly, and run it with a WebAssembly runtime that supports the wasi-nn proposal, such as WasmEdge.

Is total rubbish; no, you can’t.

This isn’t portable.

It’s not sandboxed.

If you have a wasm binary you might be able to run it if the version of the runtime you’re using happens to implement the specific ggml backend you need, which it probably doesn’t… because there’s literally no requirement for it to do so.

There’s a lot of “so portable” talk in this article which really seems misplaced.

WasmEdge isn't there yet: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/issues/1122#issuecommen...

Example 1: Analyze the content and risks of each commit in the PR. Then make a summary. https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/pull/2394#issuecomment-...

There has also been a few "cloud-native" runtimes based on WASM, like WasmEdge but there's a few others (can't remember their names!)...

On our internal testnet the 'carbon hook' fired correctly on both validators and produced the same output. However a race condition emerged due to the way emitted transactions are queued for application to the next ledger.

To profile the new engine we ran the Carbon hook (which takes 1% of your outgoing transaction and creates a new transaction to a carbon offset account).