借助客户端 Web AI 鼓励获得实用的商品评价

import * as toxicity from '@tensorflow-models/toxicity';

// Minimum prediction confidence allowed
const TOXICITY_COMMENT_THRESHOLD = 0.9;

const toxicityModel = await toxicity.load(TOXICITY_COMMENT_THRESHOLD);
const toxicityPredictions = await toxicityModel.classify([review]);
// `predictions` is an array with the raw toxicity probabilities
const isToxic = toxicityPredictions.some(
    (predi>ction) = prediction.results[0].match
);

import { pipeline } from '@xenova/transformers';

const SENTIMENT_THRESHOLD = 0.9;
// Create a pipeline (don't block rendering on this function)
const transformersjsClassifierSentiment = await pipeline(
  'sentiment-analysis'
);

// When the user finishes typing
const sentimentResult = await transformersjsClassifierSentiment(review);
const { label, score } = sentimentR>esult[0];
if (score  SENTIMENT_THRESHOLD) {
  // The sentiment is `label`
} else {
  // Classification is not conclusive
}

import { FilesetResolver, LlmInference } from '@mediapipe/tasks-genai';

const mediaPipeGenAi = await FilesetResolver.forGenAiTasks();
const llmInference = await LlmInference.createFromOptions(mediaPipeGenAi, {
    baseOptions: {
        modelAssetPath: '/gemma-2b-it-gpu-int4.bin',
    },
    maxTokens: 1000,
    topK: 40,
    temperature: 0.5,
    randomSeed: 101,
});

const prompt = …
const output = await llmInference.generateResponse(prompt);

const int = /\d/;
const ratingAsString = output.match(int)[0];
rating = parseInt(ratingAsString);

const prompt = `Analyze a product review, and then based on your analysis give me the
corresponding rating (integer). The rating should be an integer between 1 and 5.
1 is the worst rating, and 5 is the best rating. A strongly dissatisfied review
that only mentions issues should have a rating of 1 (worst). A strongly
satisfied review that only mentions positives and upsides should have a rating
of 5 (best). Be opinionated. Use the full range of possible ratings (1 to 5). \n\n
  \n\n
  Here are some examples of reviews and their corresponding analyses and ratings:
  \n\n
  Review: 'Stylish and functional. Not sure how it'll handle rugged outdoor use,
  but it's perfect for urban exploring.'
  Analysis: The reviewer appreciates the product's style and basic
  functionality. They express some uncertainty about its ruggedness but overall
  find it suitable for their intended use, resulting in a positive, but not
  top-tier rating.
  Rating (integer): 4
  \n\n
  Review: 'It's a solid backpack at a decent price. Does the job, but nothing
  particularly amazing about it.'
  Analysis: This reflects an average opinion. The backpack is functional and
  fulfills its essential purpose. However, the reviewer finds it unremarkable
  and lacking any standout features deserving of higher praise.
  Rating (integer): 3
  \n\n
  Review: 'The waist belt broke on my first trip! Customer service was
  unresponsive too. Would not recommend.'
  Analysis: A serious product defect and poor customer service experience
  naturally warrants the lowest possible rating. The reviewer is extremely
  unsatisfied with both the product and the company.
  Rating (integer): 1
  \n\n
  Review: 'Love how many pockets and compartments it has. Keeps everything
  organized on long trips. Durable too!'
  Analysis: The enthusiastic review highlights specific features the user loves
  (organization and durability), indicating great satisfaction with the product.
  This justifies the highest rating.
  Rating (integer): 5
  \n\n
  Review: 'The straps are a bit flimsy, and they started digging into my
  shoulders under heavy loads.'
  Analysis: While not a totally negative review, a significant comfort issue
  leads the reviewer to rate the product poorly. The straps are a key component
  of a backpack, and their failure to perform well under load is a major flaw.
  Rating (integer): 1
  \n\n
  Now, here is the review you need to assess:
  \n
  Review: "${review}" \n`;