5 ms·

i am curious: why this instead of feeding your LLM an OpenAPI spec?

jasonjmcghee 2y ago
It's not about the interface to make a request to a server, it's about how the client and server can interact. For example: When and how should notifications be sent and how should they be handled? --- It's a lot more like LSP.
- quantadev 2y ago
  Nobody [who knows what they're doing] wants their LLM API layer controlling anything about how their clients and servers interact though.
  - pizza 2y ago
    I do
    - quantadev 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - jasonjmcghee 2y ago
    Not sure I understand your point. If it's your client / server, you are controlling how they interact, by implementing the necessaries according to the protocol. If you're writing an LSP for a language, you're implementing the necessaries according to the protocol (when to show errors, inlay hints, code fixes, etc.) - it's not deciding on its own.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      Even if I could make use of it, I wouldn't, because I don't write proprietary code that only works on one AI Service Provider. I use only LangChain so that all of my code can be used with any LLM. My app has a simple drop down box where users can pick whatever LLM they want to to use (OpenAI, Perplexity, Gemini, Anthropic, Grok, etc) However if they've done something worthy of putting into LangChain, then I do hope LangChain steals the idea and incorporates it so that all LLM apps can use it.
      - gyre007 2y ago
        It's an open protocol; where did you get the idea that it would only work with Claude? You can implement it for whatever you want - I'm sure langchain folks are already working on something to accommodate it
        quantadev 2y ago
        Once fully adopted by at least 3 other companies I'll consider it a standard, and would consider it yes, if it solved a problem I have, which it does not. Lots of companies open source some of their internal code, then say it's "officially a protocol now" that anyone can use, and then no one else ever uses it. If they have new "tools" that's great however, but only as long as they can be used in LangChain independent of any "new protocol".
- outlore 2y ago
  makes sense, thanks for the explanation!
pizza 2y ago
I think OpenAI spec function calls are to this like what raw bytes are to unix file descriptors
- kylecazar 2y ago
  They were referring to OpenAPI (formerly Swagger)
quotemstr 2y ago
Same reason in Emacs we use lsp-mode and eglot these days instead of ad-hoc flymake and comint integrations. Plug and play.

It's not about the interface to make a request to a server, it's about how the client and server can interact. For example: When and how should notifications be sent and how should they be handled? --- It's a lot more like LSP.

quantadev 2y ago
Nobody [who knows what they're doing] wants their LLM API layer controlling anything about how their clients and servers interact though.
- pizza 2y ago
  I do
  - quantadev 2y ago
    [flagged]
- jasonjmcghee 2y ago
  Not sure I understand your point. If it's your client / server, you are controlling how they interact, by implementing the necessaries according to the protocol. If you're writing an LSP for a language, you're implementing the necessaries according to the protocol (when to show errors, inlay hints, code fixes, etc.) - it's not deciding on its own.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    Even if I could make use of it, I wouldn't, because I don't write proprietary code that only works on one AI Service Provider. I use only LangChain so that all of my code can be used with any LLM. My app has a simple drop down box where users can pick whatever LLM they want to to use (OpenAI, Perplexity, Gemini, Anthropic, Grok, etc) However if they've done something worthy of putting into LangChain, then I do hope LangChain steals the idea and incorporates it so that all LLM apps can use it.
    - gyre007 2y ago
      It's an open protocol; where did you get the idea that it would only work with Claude? You can implement it for whatever you want - I'm sure langchain folks are already working on something to accommodate it
      - quantadev 2y ago
        Once fully adopted by at least 3 other companies I'll consider it a standard, and would consider it yes, if it solved a problem I have, which it does not. Lots of companies open source some of their internal code, then say it's "officially a protocol now" that anyone can use, and then no one else ever uses it. If they have new "tools" that's great however, but only as long as they can be used in LangChain independent of any "new protocol".
outlore 2y ago
makes sense, thanks for the explanation!

pizza 2y ago

I think OpenAI spec function calls are to this like what raw bytes are to unix file descriptors

kylecazar 2y ago
They were referring to OpenAPI (formerly Swagger)

quotemstr 2y ago

Same reason in Emacs we use lsp-mode and eglot these days instead of ad-hoc flymake and comint integrations. Plug and play.