Just this week I was working on something similar but specifically for users who have disabilities, so they can more easily report issues to site owners. I also combined general annotation capability so other users (of my browser extension) can read their comments. And also compatibility with Hypothesis (https://github.com/hypothesis, https://hypothes.is), also using the W3C Web Annotation spec.
I hadn't thought of the drag-and-drop bug metaphor; I like it.
I had also considered recording mouse and keystroke events up until the time that the bug is marked, and then bundling those events (sanitized) with the bug report for more precise repro steps, but of course that's a bigger ask for the opt-in.
You managed to make a web app in 2025 that has almost no HTML semantics and almost no keyboard accessibility (so very clearly and deeply not WCAG-conformant). Gosh, I haven't seen that in quite a while. Mind sharing which tools you used to make it?
I've been looking for an algorithm for running OCR or STT results through multiple language models, compare the results and detect hallucinations as well as correct errors by combining the results in a kind of group consensus way. I figured someone must have done something similar already. If anyone has any leads or more thoughts on algorithm implementation, I'd appreciate it.
> At least one author noted that there was a concern that writing would lead to a diminishment of human memory/loss of oral tradition (Louis L'Amour in _The Walking Drum_).
Really? I can't tell if you're joking, so I'll take it at face value.
See, I associate the earliest famous (I thought) expression of that concern with Plato, and before today I couldn't remember any other associated details enough to articulate them with confidence. ChatGPT tells me, using the above quote without the citation as a prompt, that it was in Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus, and offers additional succinct contextual information and a better quote from that work. I probably first learned to associate that complaint about writing with Plato in college, and probably got it from C.D.C. Reeve, who was a philosophy professor and expert on Plato at the college I attended. But I feel no need to cite any of Reeve's works when dropping that vague reference. If I were to use any of Reeve's original thoughts related to analysis of Plato, then a reference would be merited.
It seems to me that there are different layers of abstraction of knowledge and memory, and LLMs mostly capture and very effectively synthesize knowledge at layers of abstraction that are above that of grammar checkers and below that of plagiarism in most cases. It's true that it is the nature of many of today's biggest transformers that they do in some cases produce output that qualifies as plagiarism by conventional standards. Every instance of that plagiarism is problematic, and should be a primary focus of innovation going forward. But in this conversation no one seems to acknowledge that the bar has been moved. The machine looked upon the library, and produced some output, therefore we should assume it is all theft? I am not persuaded.
