guidance VS dspy

[1]: https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance/tree/main

> The most obvious usage of this is forcing a model to output valid JSON

Isn't this something that Outlines [0], Guidance [1] and others [2] already solve much more elegantly?

0. https://github.com/outlines-dev/outlines

1. https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance

2. https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang

Or combine it with something like llama.cpp's grammer or microsoft's guidance-ai[0] (which I prefer) which would allow adding some react-style prompting and external tools. As others have mentioned, instruct tuning would help too.

[0] https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance

have been experimenting with guidance and lmql. a bit too early to give any well formed opinions but really do like the idea of constraining llm output.

Thanks for your comment.

I did not know about "Betteridge's law of headlines", quite interesting. Thanks for sharing :)

You raise some interesting points.

1) Safety: It is true that LVMs and LLMs have unknown biases and could potentially create unsafe content. However, this is not necessarily unique to them, for example, Google had the same problem with their supervised learning model https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-go.... It all depends on the original data. I believe we need systems on top of our models to ensure safety. It is also possible to restrict the output domain of our models (https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance). Instead of allowing our LVMs to output any words, we could restrict it to only being able to answer "red, green, blue..." when giving the color of a car.

2) Cost: You are right right now LVMs are quite expensive to run. As you said are a great way to go to market faster but they cannot run on low-cost hardware for the moment. However, they could help with training those smaller models. Indeed, with see in the NLP domain that a lot of smaller models are trained on data created with GPT models. You can still distill the knowledge of your LVMs into a custom smaller model that can run on embedded devices. The advantage is that you can use your LVMs to generate data when it is scarce and use it as a fallback when your smaller device is uncertain of the answer.

3) Labelling data: I don't think labeling data is necessarily cheap. First, you have to collect the data, depending on the frequency of your events could take months of monitoring if you want to build a large-scale dataset. Lastly, not all labeling is necessarily cheap. I worked at a semiconductor company and labeled data was scarce as it required expert knowledge and could only be done by experienced employees. Indeed not all labelling can be done externally.

However, both approaches are indeed complementary and I think systems that will work the best will rely on both.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking discussion. I hope this answer some of the concerns you raised

I've had a bit of trouble getting function calling to work with cases that aren't just extracting some data from the input. The format is correct but it was harder to get the correct data if it wasn't a simple extraction.

Hopefully OpenAI and others will offer something like https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance at some point to guarantee overall output structure.

Failed validations will retry, but from what I've seen JSONSchema + generated JSON examples are decently reliable in practice for gpt-3.5-turbo and extremely reliable on gpt-4.

Legal practitioners often need to find specific cases and clauses across thousands of dense documents. While traditional keyword-based search techniques are useful, they fail to fully capture semantic content of queries and case files. Vector search engines and large language models provide an intriguing alternative. In this talk, I will show you how to build a legal search application using the DSPy framework and the Milvus vector search engine.

I’ve observed that Pydantic - which we’ve used for years in our API stack - has become very popular in LLM applications, for its type-adjacent features. It serves as a foundational technology for prompting libraries like [DSPy](https://github.com/stanfordnlp/dspy) which are abstracting “up the stack” of LLM apps. (some opinions there)

Operating AI apps reveals a big challenge, in that debugging probabilistic code paths requires more than the usual introspective abilities, and in an environment where function calls can have very real monetary impact we have to be able to see what’s happening in the runtime. See LangChain’s hosted solution (can’t recall the name) that allows an operator to see prompts and responses “on the wire”. (It just occurred to me that Langchain and Pydantic have a lot in common here, in approach.)

Having a coupling between Pydantic - which is *just about* the data layer itself - and an observability tool seems very interesting to me, and having this come from the folks who built it does not seem unreasonable. WRT open source and monetization, I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little worried - given the recent few months - but I am choosing to see this in a positive light, given this team’s “believability weight” (to overuse Dalio) and history of delivering solid and really useful tooling.

DSPy is the best tool for optimizing prompts [0]: https://github.com/stanfordnlp/dspy

Think of it as a meta-prompt optimizer, it uses a LLM to optimize your prompts, to optimize your LLM.

Isn’t this just a very naive implementation of what DsPY does?

https://github.com/stanfordnlp/dspy

I don’t understand what is exceptional here.

Have you done any comparison with DSPy ? (https://github.com/stanfordnlp/dspy)

Feels very similiar to DSPy except you dont have optimizations yet. But I like your API and the programming model your are enforcing through this.

I'm interested in hearing if anyone has used DSPy (https://github.com/stanfordnlp/dspy) just for prompt optimization for GPT-3.5 or GPT-4. Was it worth the effort and much better than manual prompt iteration? Was the optimized prompt some weird incantation? Any other insights?

You should check out x.com/lateinteraction's DSPy — which is like an optimizer for prompts — https://github.com/stanfordnlp/dspy