3 ms·
If fairness to toon, the alternative json your giving doesn’t include hints on structure. Not sure LLM are more “tuned” to JSON. That said, your general point
by rc1 11mo ago
If fairness to toon, the alternative json your giving doesn’t include hints on structure.
Not sure LLM are more “tuned” to JSON.
That said, your general point holds that toon maybe unnecessary. Especially in the examples given. But perhaps plan text would suffice. Toon could be useful when automating inputs with many different shapes.
- copypaper 11mo agoYea exactly. The LLMs are tuned to natural language. I don't think anything will beat good ol' templating (a.k.a. plain text). In Go I do something like this: // mytemplate.tmpl Description="The following data is for the users in our application." Format="id,name,role" length=2 Data: {{range .}} {{.ID}}, {{.Name}}, {{.Role}} {{end}} This way you're able to change the formatting to something the LLM understands for each struct. The LLM might understand some structs better as JSON, others as YAML, and others in an arbitrary format. Templating gives you the most flexibility to choose which one will work best.