Thread

1. prometheus1992 · 1789830629 · focus · HN ↗

   I think the main gripe that people had with Jev and Typesafe was the language used when they launched. To me personally it seemed like a parody/con/shady at first.

   "Breakthrough", "our research went in another direction" , "Two years in stealth", "System One thinking model", "Jev can't hallucinate", "RLCD","We are doing very cool stuff, but we will have to hire you to tell you", - these are some of the things that they said on their website on the launch blog.

   I had used versions of bert to achieve the same functionality years ago. But to me it seems like they were able to trick the VCs with "can't hallucinate" etc.

   To the above author, kudos for sharing your work and making it open. Something like this shouldn't be closed in the first place when it has been available for so many years

   1. seizethecheese · 1789836567 · focus · HN ↗

      I was confused by the “can’t hallucinate” thing, because it sounded like BS but people were taking it seriously. I purposefully asked a stupid question sort of like “this can’t hallucinate because it only has one output and there’s a schema?”. Was disappointed to learn the answer was yes.

      1. mrbonner · 1789844080 · focus · HN ↗

         But that hallucination is reproducible so you can adjust the prompt. Unlike an LLM in which everything is wildly not deterministic.

         1. dojomouse · 1789847933 · focus · HN ↗

            LLM can be made deterministic too, they’re just generally not because the element of randomness is a feature.

            There’s a big difference between deterministic and smooth though. Typical LLMs certainly aren’t reliably smooth, so the small prompt change might product a large and unpredictable output change. I’m not sure if that’s any better with the typesafe approach.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.