PolarKraken comments on I'm tired of LLM bullshitting. So I fixed it.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

This sounds really interesting, I'm looking forward to reading the comments here in detail and looking at the project, might even end up incorporating it into my own!

I'm working on something that addresses the same problem in a different way, the problem of constraining or delineating the specifically non-deterministic behavior one wants to involve in a complex workflow. Your approach is interesting and has a lot of conceptual overlap with mine, regarding things like strictly defining compliance criteria and rejecting noncompliant outputs, and chaining discrete steps into a packaged kind of "super step" that integrates non-deterministic substeps into a somewhat more deterministic output, etc.

How involved was it to build it to comply with the OpenAI API format? I haven't looked into that myself but may.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago

The very hardest part of designing software, and especially designing abstractions that aim to streamline use of other tools, is deciding exactly where you draw the line(s) between intended flexibility (user should be able and find it easy to do what they want), and opinionated "do it my way here, and I'll constrain options for doing otherwise".

You have very clear and thoughtful lines drawn here, about where the flexibility starts and ends, and where the opinionated "this is the point of the package/approach, so do it this way" parts are, too.

Sincerely that's a big compliment and something I see as a strong signal about your software design instincts. Well done! (I haven't played with it yet, to be clear, lol)