Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TypeChat

microsoft.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 174 posts

Re: TypeChat

#111

Post by pizza »

9dev wrote: post #37
sdwr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking about this yesterday. ChatGPT really is good enough to act as a proper virtual assistant / home manager, with enough toggles exposed.

ChatGPT isn’t the limiting factor here, a good way to expose the toggles is. I recently tried to expose our company CRM to employees by means of a Teams bot they could ask for stuff in natural language (like „send an invite link to newlead@example.org“ or „how many MAUs did customer Foo have in June“), but while I almost got there, communicating an ever-growing set of actionable commands (with an arbitrary number of…

How about unix's (and plan9's more extreme version of) "everything is a file" philosophy? The gift that won't stop giving..

Re: TypeChat

#112

Post by behnamoh »

verdverm wrote: post #42
bwestergard wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value is in: 1. Running the typescript type checker against what is returned by the LLM. 2. If there are type errors, combining those into a "repair prompt" that will (it is assumed) have a higher likelihood of eliciting an LLM output that type checks. 3. Gracefully handling the cases where the heuristic in #2 fails. https://github.com/microsoft/TypeChat/blob/main/src/typechat... In my experience experimenting wi…

these are trivial steps you can add in any script, as your link demonstrates. Why would I want to add all this extra stuff just for that? The opaque retry until it returns valid JSON? That sounds like it will make for many pleasant support cases or issues Personally, I have found investing more effort in the actual prompt engineering improves success rates and reduces the need to retry with an appended error message.…

agreed. not to mention we're talking about Microsoft here. the same company that gave us "guidance", a defunct LLM framework.

Re: TypeChat

#113

Post by nurettin »

This is rather trivial. The real challenge would be to make it choose what type to return. The function api does that, but then natural conversations sometimes involve calling multiple functions, and there isn't a good schema for that.

Re: TypeChat

#114

Post by layoric »

behnamoh wrote: post #112
verdverm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these are trivial steps you can add in any script, as your link demonstrates. Why would I want to add all this extra stuff just for that? The opaque retry until it returns valid JSON? That sounds like it will make for many pleasant support cases or issues Personally, I have found investing more effort in the actual prompt engineering improves success rates and reduces the need to retry with an appended error message.…

agreed. not to mention we're talking about Microsoft here. the same company that gave us "guidance", a defunct LLM framework.

I’ve used guidance, why is it defunct? I found it was powerful at templating, really decent for generating synthetic datasets.

Re: TypeChat

#115

Post by nonethewiser »

bottlepalm wrote: post #22

How does no voice assistant (Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft) integrate LLMs into their service yet, and how has OpenAI not released their own voice assistant? Also like RSS, if there were some standard URL a websites exposed for AI interaction, using this TypeChat to expose the interfaces, we'd be well on our way here.

> How does no voice assistant (Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft) integrate LLMs into their service yet

When I first learned what ChatGPT was my thought was "oh so like what Siri is supposed to be."

Re: TypeChat

#116

Post by bottlepalm »

dbish wrote: post #57
bottlepalm wrote: post #22

How does no voice assistant (Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft) integrate LLMs into their service yet, and how has OpenAI not released their own voice assistant? Also like RSS, if there were some standard URL a websites exposed for AI interaction, using this TypeChat to expose the interfaces, we'd be well on our way here.

OpenAI is pretty likely working on their own (see Kaparthy's "Building a kind of JARVIS @ OреոΑӏ"), and Microsoft of course is doing an integration or reinterpretation of Cortana with OpenAI's LLMS (since they are incapable of building their own models nowadays it seems - "Why do we have Microsoft Research at all?”-S.N.), but there's a lot less value in voice driven LLM then there is in actually being able to perform…

It's July, they just needed to put a voice interface on ChatGPT, it'd easily help them sell more pro licenses as well. I'm not a conspiracy person, but this just seems so obvious it feels like there's something else going on here.

Re: TypeChat

#117

Post by paragraft »

paxys wrote: post #3

I swear I think of something and Anders Hejlsberg builds it. Structured requests and responses are 100% the next evolution of LLMs. People are already getting tired of chatbots. Being able to plug in any backend without worrying about text parsing and prompts will be amazing.

Tell me about it - I implemented this just yesterday except with a focus on functions rather than objects.

Re: TypeChat

#118

Post by akavi »

just-ok wrote: post #102
akavi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for even the simplest schemas. Eg, given even the type: {"aLongerKey": "value"} The generation prefix: {"a would by your algorithm produce the following invalid output: {"a}

But that isn’t valid JSON

Right, it would fail even before hitting the typing check.

Re: TypeChat

#119

Post by [deleted] »

bottlepalm wrote: post #116
dbish wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is pretty likely working on their own (see Kaparthy's "Building a kind of JARVIS @ OреոΑӏ"), and Microsoft of course is doing an integration or reinterpretation of Cortana with OpenAI's LLMS (since they are incapable of building their own models nowadays it seems - "Why do we have Microsoft Research at all?”-S.N.), but there's a lot less value in voice driven LLM then there is in actually being able to perform…

It's July, they just needed to put a voice interface on ChatGPT, it'd easily help them sell more pro licenses as well. I'm not a conspiracy person, but this just seems so obvious it feels like there's something else going on here.

[deleted]

Re: TypeChat

#120

Post by sambroner »

msp26 wrote: post #101
LordDragonfang wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where all you people work that your employer would prefer a random git repo (that has no support and no guarantee of updates) over a solution from Microsoft . (Alternatively: that you have so much free time that you'd prefer to fiddle with your own validation code instead of writing your actual app) Open source solutions are great (which this still is, btw), but having a first-party solution is also a go…

You're overrating the influence of the name Microsoft here. It's just some devs from the company working on this with no proper guarantee backing the project. I've been through this whole song and dance already with Microsoft's Guidance (another LLM project) and could not justify using it further in production at work. We built some tools and wrappers ourselves and it wasn't even that difficult. These libraries are o…

I’m pretty sure Anders, Steve Lucco, and Daniel Rosenwasser worked on this. So inventors + current lead PM of typescript.

Should lend some credibility to the project.

Post reply on HN