3 ms·
> OpenAI made the extraordinary and IMO under-discussed decision to use an open API specification format, where every API provider hosts a text file on their we
by sebzim4500 4y ago
> OpenAI made the extraordinary and IMO under-discussed decision to use an open API specification format, where every API provider hosts a text file on their website saying how to use their API. This means even this plugin ecosystem isn’t a walled garden that only the first mover controls. I don’t fully understand why they went this way, but I’m grateful they did.
Why is this extraodinary? What would be the advantage of going through all the effort of defining a new format just to create busywork for people trying to integrate with you?
It's not like there would be anything stopping Bard/Alpaca/etc. from reading the same format as OpenAI.
- gradys 4y agoOne could imagine an alternative where the API manifest was provided privately to OpenAI in the developer console or where the plugin developer had to implement an OpenAI-specific API structure. Doing it this way is more, dare I say, open than it might have been.
- sebzim4500 4y agoThere'd still be nothing stopping Bard from adopting an extremely similar API structure, and people would just upload the same manifests to both.
- Version467 4y agoYes and when you're google then that might work out for you, but that point is that anyone who creates an llm can now integrate a whole range of services without the services needing to provide their manifest to each of them individually. This increases competition between ai companies, which is why it is a surprising move.