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

Apps SDK

developers.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 397 posts

Re: Apps SDK

#121

Post by pkaye »

throwacct wrote: post #102
serial_dev wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what’s implied is that developers and businesses would innovate, not OpenAI directly.

Knowing OAI's history, only big whales could survive being copied by the platform's owner—case in point: Amazon Basics. They're so big that most of the time, SMBs can't escape them and don't have a choice but to cave to Amazon's demands. Is your product successful? Great, I'll copy you, add the "Amazon basics" label, and start bombarding users with my "product".

Amazon basics is a private label just like Costco and the Kirkland Brand. Same thing with Walmart, Target, Trader Joes, etc. And if these SMBs don't have to deal with Amazon, they will have to deal with a dozen copycats from China for anything that becomes a hit.

Re: Apps SDK

#122

Post by awesome_dude »

jampa wrote: post #90
siva7 wrote: post #58

This feels like a fever dream. As a developer everything changes every week. A new model, a new tool, a new sdk, paradigm we have to learn. I'm getting tired of all that shit.

As a JS developer for over 10 years who has seen multiple hype waves, here is my advice: You don't need to ride the first wave. You can wait until technology matures and see if it has staying power. For example, React and TypeScript were hard to set up initially. I deferred learning them for years until the tooling improved and they were clearly here to stay. Likewise, I'm glad I didn't dive into tech like LangChain…

This is how I feel about Rust.

The big hype wave has finished now (we still have the "how dare you criticise our technology bros" roaming around though), the tooling is maturing now. It's almost time for me to actually get my feet wet with it :)

Re: Apps SDK

#123

Post by ajcp »

pyuser583 wrote: post #103
jampa wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a JS developer for over 10 years who has seen multiple hype waves, here is my advice: You don't need to ride the first wave. You can wait until technology matures and see if it has staying power. For example, React and TypeScript were hard to set up initially. I deferred learning them for years until the tooling improved and they were clearly here to stay. Likewise, I'm glad I didn't dive into tech like LangChain…

LangChain has gone? I thought it was still around.

It is but I feel it's main value prop as a developer friendly abstraction layer has been very well solved for by the actual model providers themselves, while LangChain itself have become more bloated, clunky, and to under-opinionated.

Re: Apps SDK

#124

Post by artursapek »

fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

Once it's efficient enough, you will be able to just vocally talk to your computer to do all of this. Text chat is just the simplest form of a natural language interface, which is obviously the future of computing.

Re: Apps SDK

#125

Post by munk-a »

derekcheng08 wrote: post #106
fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

I suspect there are many, many things for which chat is a great interface. And by positioning ChatGPT as the distributor for all these things, they get to be the new Google. But you're also right that many domains for which a purpose-built interface is the right approach, and if the domain is valuable enough, it'll have someone coming after it to build that.

I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruition - that may be the case and if it is then allowing them the same time to be refined and improved would be fair. I am skeptical of that being the only difference though, I think that chatbots are a way to, essentially, outsource the difficult work of locating data within a corpus onto the user and that users will always have a disadvantage compared to the (hopefully) subject matter experts building the system.

So perhaps chatbots are an excellent method for building out a prototype in a new field while you collect usage statistics to build a more refined UX - but it is bizarre that so many businesses seem to be discarding battle tested UXes for chatbots.

Re: Apps SDK

#126

Post by dylan604 »

glenstein wrote: post #115
fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

There's a lot of appropriate blowback against stupid AI hype and I'm all for it. But I do think in many respects it's a better interface than (1) bad search results, (2) cluttered websites, (3) freemium apps with upgrade nags, as well as the collective search cost of sorting through all those things. I remember reading some not-Neuromancer book by William Gibson where one of his near-future predictions was print maga…

at least with bad search results, you had to look at them to know they were bad or become used to certain domains that you could prejudge the result and move to the next one. LLMs confidently tell you false/made up information as fact. If you fail to follow up with any references and just accept result, you are very susceptible to getting fooled by the machine. Getting outside of the tech bubble echo chamber that is HN, a large number of GPT app users have never heard of hallucinations or any of the issues inherit with LLMs.

Re: Apps SDK

#127

Post by 9dev »

rushingcreek wrote: post #6

I think this is very interesting, but it is reminiscent of what we built with Phind 2 where the answer could include dynamic, pre-built widgets. The problem with this approach is precisely that these apps/widgets have hard-coded input and output schema. They can work quite well when the user asks something within the widget's capabilities, but the brittleness of this approach starts showing quickly in real-world use.…

Ah, that’s interesting. I’m considering building something similar for our product, and my solution to the schema constraints you mentioned thus far is breaking my widgets into blocks as universal as possible, as to still be useful. All of this is just ideas yet mind you, but my thinking was—maybe I can get the model to pick from a range of composable widgets depending on the task that are interoperable?

For a concrete example, think a search result listing that can be broken down into a single result or a matrix to compare results, as well as a filter section. So you could ask for different facets of your current context, to iterate over a search session and interact with the results. Dunno, I’m still researching.

Have you written somewhere about your experience with Phind in this area?

Re: Apps SDK

#128

Post by AlphaAndOmega0 »

fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

>If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

I'm not sure that claim is justified. The primary agentic use case today is code generation, and the target demographic is used to IDEs/code editors.

While that's probably a good chunk of total token usage, it's not representative of the average user's needs or desires. I strongly doubt that the chat interface would have become so ubiquitous if it didn't have merit.

Even for more general agentic use, a chat interface allows the user the convenience of typing or dictating messages. And it's trivially bundled with audio-to-audio or video-to-video, the former already being common.

I expect that even in the future, if/when richer modalities become standard (and the models can produce video in real-time), most people will be consuming their outputs as text. It's simply more convenient for most use-cases.

Re: Apps SDK

#129

Post by elpakal »

pphysch wrote: post #56
MaxPock wrote: post #42

This is honestly useful. "Find me hotels in Capetown that have a pool by the beach .Should cost between 200 dollars to 800 dollars a night "

[injected with guerilla ads] I don't see how this is a significant upgrade over the many existing hotel-finder tools. At best it slightly augments them as a first pass, but I would still rather look at an actual map of options than trust a stream of generated, ad-augmented text.

The benefit I see is that it meets users where they presumable already are (GPT). As other comments allude to here, it's clear they see themselves as a staple of the user's online experience.

Re: Apps SDK

#130

Post by [deleted] »

emilsedgh wrote: post #31

I see a lot of negative comments here but to me, it was obvious this is where OAI should land. They want to be the platform in which you tell what you want, and OAI does it for you. It's gonna connect to your inbox, calendar, payment methods, and you'll just ask it to do something and it will, using those apps. This means OAI won't need ads. Just rev share.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN