3 ms·
It's a shame they couldn't use yaml, instead. I compared them and yaml uses about 20% fewer tokens. However, I can understand accuracy, derived from frequency,
by irthomasthomas 3y ago
It's a shame they couldn't use yaml, instead. I compared them and yaml uses about 20% fewer tokens. However, I can understand accuracy, derived from frequency, being more important than token budget.
- IshKebab 3y agoI would imagine JSON is easier for a LLM to understand (and for humans!) because it doesn't rely on indentation and confusing syntax for lists, strings etc.
- AdrienBrault 3y agoI think YAML actually uses more tokens than JSON without indents, especially with deep data. For example "," being a single token makes JSON quite compact. You can compare JSON and YAML on https://platform.openai.com/tokenizer https://platform.openai.com/tokenizer
- nasir 3y agoIts a lot more straightforward to use JSON programmatically than YAML.
- golergka 3y agoIf you are using any kind of type checking instead of blindly trusting generated json it's exactly the same amount of work.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoIt really shouldn't be, though. I.e. not unless you're parsing or emitting it ad-hoc, for example by assuming that an expression like: "{" + $someKey + ":" + $someValue + "}" produces a valid JSON. It does - sometimes - and then it's indeed easier to work with. It'll also blow up in your face. Using JSON the right way - via a proper parser and serializer - should be identical to using YAML or any other equivalent format.
- riwsky 3y agoEven if the APIs for both were equally simple, modules for manipulating json are way more likely to be available in the stdlib of whatever language you’re using.
- blamy 3y agoJSON can be minified.