3 ms·
A little bit of a tangent, but I'm really curious what benefits could come from integrating these LLM tools more closely with data from LSPs, compilers, and oth
by h14h 2y ago
A little bit of a tangent, but I'm really curious what benefits could come from integrating these LLM tools more closely with data from LSPs, compilers, and other static analysis tools.
Intuitively, it seems like you could provide much more context and better output as a result. Even better would be if you could fine-tune LLMs on a per-language basis and ship them alongside typical editor tooling.
A problem I see w/ these AI tools is that they work much better with old, popular languages, and I worry that this will grow as a significant factor when choosing a language. Anecdotally, I see far better results when using TypeScript than Gleam, for example.
It would be very cool to be able to install a Gleam-specific model that could be fed data from the LSP and compiler, and wouldn't constantly hallucinate invalid syntax. I also wonder if, with additional context & fine-tuning, you could make these models smaller and more feasible to run locally on modest hardware.
- sdesol 2y ago> work much better with old, popular languages I think this will improve significantly over time when when hardware becomes cheaper. As long as newer languages can map to older languages (syntax/function wise), we should be able generate enough synthetic data to make working with less known languages easier.
- rabiescow 2y agoyou are free to contribute your own gleam llms. They're only as good as their inputs, thus if there's very few publicly available packages for a certain language that's all the input they got...