5 ms·

I think you should probably mention that its source is available! [0] I don't personally have a need for this right now, but I can really see the use for the p

by _puk 3y ago

I think you should probably mention that its source is available! [0] I don't personally have a need for this right now, but I can really see the use for the parameterised queries, as well as comparisons across models. Thanks for your efforts! 0: https://github.com/ianarawjo/ChainForge https://github.com/ianarawjo/ChainForge

swyx 3y ago
"source available" means one thing, but this is properly MIT open source and i believe the authors should receive credit for that in this age of frankenlicenses EDIT: ah: "This work was partially funded by the NSF grant IIS-2107391." ok cool we the taxpayer funded it haha
- _puk 3y ago
  I didn't want to open that can of worms: "If you use ChainForge for research purposes, or build upon the source code, we ask that you cite this project in any related publications. The BibTeX you can use for now is.." That's outside of the MIT licence as far as I'm concerned
  - 7moritz7 3y ago
    It says "we ask", not "you have to". I'd say it's open to interpretation that this is an informal request and not legally binding. Also I do want to open the can of worms and say that whoever doesn't even have the respect to include a citation on request when using someone else's work should just write everything themselves.
  - priyanmuthu 3y ago
    Hi! I’m one of the great students working on this. This is merely a request to get more visibility. It will also help us get more grants. We don’t have any intention of restricting the “openness” of it.
    - _puk 3y ago
      Awesome, thank you! If I called it truly open source I half expected to get shot down. I know where we stand now :)
    - gsuuon 3y ago
      Y'all sure are some great students! ;)
  - mabcat 3y ago
    I think that's the wrong end of the stick. When you publish research, the software you used/built on is part of the methods and needs to be cited. The authors are doing you a courtesy by providing a pasteable citation. Similar "we would appreciate citations" statement for (BSD-licensed) pandas: https://pandas.pydata.org/about/citing.html https://pandas.pydata.org/about/citing.html 8000+ pubs citing pandas: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9876954816936339312 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9876954816936339312
KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
It seems to be more powerful than langflow and flowise https://github.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://github.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise
- swyx 3y ago
  k i need somebody to do a comparison table for us...
  - priyanmuthu 3y ago
    We will mostly do this comparison when we write our research paper. I can post it here when we do it.
  - sdesol 3y ago
    I can't comment on the features, but ChainForge has some catching up to do...mind share wise. Below are some community insights for langflow, Flowise and ChainForge https://devboard.gitsense.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://devboard.gitsense.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://devboard.gitsense.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise https://devboard.gitsense.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise https://devboard.gitsense.com/ianarawjo/ChainForge https://devboard.gitsense.com/ianarawjo/ChainForge Flowise currently has the largest active community (based on GitHub data) Full Disclosure: This is my tool
    - swyx 3y ago
      back in finance they had a saying: traders know the price of everything but the value of nothing. thats what its like to blindly compare tools by github numbers
      - sdesol 3y ago
        I sort of know where you are coming from, but I think it is hard to discount the fact that 80 new people took the time to create 99 issues in the last 6 weeks in Flowise. No matter how you look at it, this is a strong indicator that this project has strong engagement. I'm not saying ChainForge is bad, but it will need to go against that kind of community engagement that other projects with a head start have. However, if you believe people contributing code (26) and participating in non code activity (150) in Flowise in the last 6 weeks are just novelty metrics, then yes, comparing numbers is silly.

by _puk 3y ago

swyx 3y ago

"source available" means one thing, but this is properly MIT open source and i believe the authors should receive credit for that in this age of frankenlicenses EDIT: ah: "This work was partially funded by the NSF grant IIS-2107391." ok cool we the taxpayer funded it haha

_puk 3y ago
I didn't want to open that can of worms: "If you use ChainForge for research purposes, or build upon the source code, we ask that you cite this project in any related publications. The BibTeX you can use for now is.." That's outside of the MIT licence as far as I'm concerned
- 7moritz7 3y ago
  It says "we ask", not "you have to". I'd say it's open to interpretation that this is an informal request and not legally binding. Also I do want to open the can of worms and say that whoever doesn't even have the respect to include a citation on request when using someone else's work should just write everything themselves.
- priyanmuthu 3y ago
  Hi! I’m one of the great students working on this. This is merely a request to get more visibility. It will also help us get more grants. We don’t have any intention of restricting the “openness” of it.
  - _puk 3y ago
    Awesome, thank you! If I called it truly open source I half expected to get shot down. I know where we stand now :)
  - gsuuon 3y ago
    Y'all sure are some great students! ;)
- mabcat 3y ago
  I think that's the wrong end of the stick. When you publish research, the software you used/built on is part of the methods and needs to be cited. The authors are doing you a courtesy by providing a pasteable citation. Similar "we would appreciate citations" statement for (BSD-licensed) pandas: https://pandas.pydata.org/about/citing.html https://pandas.pydata.org/about/citing.html 8000+ pubs citing pandas: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9876954816936339312 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9876954816936339312

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

It seems to be more powerful than langflow and flowise https://github.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://github.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise https://github.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise

swyx 3y ago
k i need somebody to do a comparison table for us...
- priyanmuthu 3y ago
  We will mostly do this comparison when we write our research paper. I can post it here when we do it.
- sdesol 3y ago
  I can't comment on the features, but ChainForge has some catching up to do...mind share wise. Below are some community insights for langflow, Flowise and ChainForge https://devboard.gitsense.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://devboard.gitsense.com/logspace-ai/langflow https://devboard.gitsense.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise https://devboard.gitsense.com/FlowiseAI/Flowise https://devboard.gitsense.com/ianarawjo/ChainForge https://devboard.gitsense.com/ianarawjo/ChainForge Flowise currently has the largest active community (based on GitHub data) Full Disclosure: This is my tool
  - swyx 3y ago
    back in finance they had a saying: traders know the price of everything but the value of nothing. thats what its like to blindly compare tools by github numbers
    - sdesol 3y ago
      I sort of know where you are coming from, but I think it is hard to discount the fact that 80 new people took the time to create 99 issues in the last 6 weeks in Flowise. No matter how you look at it, this is a strong indicator that this project has strong engagement. I'm not saying ChainForge is bad, but it will need to go against that kind of community engagement that other projects with a head start have. However, if you believe people contributing code (26) and participating in non code activity (150) in Flowise in the last 6 weeks are just novelty metrics, then yes, comparing numbers is silly.