5 ms·
I agree with the sentiment, but if anything is made clear by how ChatGPT plugins work, it's that standardization of a protocol here is unnecessary when you are
by carlosdp 4y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but if anything is made clear by how ChatGPT plugins work, it's that standardization of a protocol here is unnecessary when you are talking about tooling designed to be used by LLMs. They can just figure it out!
Even if you have 10 different ways of describing plugins all by different teams, you're not writing declarative code for each one, you're throwing them to the LLM all the same and saying "you figure it out," and it does.
Finetuning a model for certain schemas (as the author at one point suggests) should be entirely unnecessary, given my experience. You just need access to a model more at par with gpt-3.5-turbo, which we'll surely see in open source in no time!
- sharemywin 4y agoor you build a short dev cycle that builds the way to consume it
- saqadri 4y agoAuthor here. We definitely agree these models are really powerful and can figure out a lot on their own. A protocol wouldn't be restrictive to their flexibility, but it'll allow different clients running different models to still be able to interact with the same plugins. Defining a standard around external memory, authentication, rules-based engines for preprocess/post-processing, and declarative or dynamic chaining of actions can help make plugins model-agnostic, and benefit all of us as developers and users.
- imtringued 4y agoAnd this is how you end up with 15 different standards. LLaMA can work with ChatGPT plugins and ChatGPT can work with LLaMA plugins but why would you want plugin developers to have to choose between those options?
- akiselev 4y agoSame reason with ended up with 15 different standards elsewhere: diversity. We're in uncharted waters and we have no idea which format will be optimal for one LLM let alone all of them. Given how much prompt engineer has become a thing, finding optimal formats is important.
- evv 4y agoI would argue we are in uncharted waters, so we can't even say for certain that it is important to find optimal formats. Maybe 15 "standards" aren't enough and we will have 1500 that LLMs will happily use and learn xkcd/927 may loose relevance in the era of LLM
- ryanjshaw 4y agoIt's year 1. Competing standards are OK.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- arbuge 4y ago> And this is how you end up with 15 different standards. Actually, this is something never seen before. This is an entirely new way of ending up with 15 different standards.