Origin-trials feedback on the Rewriter API as requested

[moviescripter]

I got an email from origin-trials-support@google.com asking for Rewriter API feedback so here it is.

I've used Nano extensively now both with the prompt and rewriter APIs and it's a highly capable, fast, dependable, multi-lingual model with almost no hallucination. Overall, I've been amazed how capable it is given its small size. It can also function reasonable well on a 14 year old Intel i7-2600 PC running Win10 with 16BG RAM but it's obviously much faster on a mid-range modern gaming PC with 8GB of VRAM.

I've also been running my HTML/JS SPA with Edge's Phi-4-mini-instruct model and Nano is superior in every way. If I give the same prompt to each, Phi-4-mini is much more likely to misunderstand the prompt or even enter a permanent thinking loop. Nano usually does what you ask it to do. With the rewriter API I've asked Nano to rewrite screenplay dialogue in a particular character types and it's done a great job each time whereas Phi-4-mini seems to have less understanding of dialogue styles.

My use-case is a Screenplay editor and my biggest criticism is the 9216 token context window. This only accommodates, at most, 30 pages of a screenplay in plain text format, whereas a feature screenplay is usually 90+ pages (1 page per minute of screen time). Having a way to enlarge the context window would be my number one request. If the user's hardware can't cope, it's their problem. Microsoft claim Phi-4-mini has a 128K window so I suspect Nano's window could be larger than 9216 if Chrome allowed it.

I'm also surprised only Chromebook Plus hardware is allowed to run Nano. ChromeOS Flex is being installed on some powerful older hardware that could run Nano if it was allowed by Chrome.