simpleaichat VS evals

I checked both the issues mentioned, people have been respectful and showing empathy to author's situation

https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/issues/91

https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/issues/92

ChatGPT's June updated added support for "function calling", which in practice is structured data I/O marketed very poorly: https://openai.com/blog/function-calling-and-other-api-updat...

Here's an example of using structured data for better output control (lightly leveraging my Python package to reduce LoC: https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/blob/main/examples... )

So what are the alternatives to LangChain that the HN crowd uses?

I see two contenders:

https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/tree/main/simpleai...

https://github.com/griptape-ai/griptape

There is also the llm command line utility that has a very thin underlying library, but which might grow eventually:

A fun note is that even with system prompt engineering it may not give the most efficient solution: ChatGPT still outputs the avergage case.

I tested around it and doing two passes (generate code and "make it more efficient") works best, with system prompt engineering to result in less code output: https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/blob/main/examples...

I played around with simpleaichat for a few minutes just now, and I really like it. Unlike LangChain, I can understand what it does in minutes, and it looks like its primitives are fairly powerful. It looks like it's going to replace the `openai` library for me, it seems like a nice wrapper.

I'm especially looking forward to playing with the structured data models bit: https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/blob/main/examples...

Well done, Max!

https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat bills itself as a simpler alternative to langchain. I have not tried it, but it looks interesting.

I think you are asking specifically about practical LLM engineering and not the underlying science.

Honestly this is all moving so fast you can do well by reading the news, following a few reddits/substacks, and skimming the prompt engineering papers as they come out every week (!).

https://www.latent.space/p/ai-engineer provides an early manifesto for this nascent layer of the stack.

Zvi writes a good roundup (though he is concerned mostly with alignment so skip if you don’t like that angle): https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ai-18-the-great-debate-debates

Simon W has some good writeups too: https://simonwillison.net/

I strongly recommend playing with the OpenAI APIs and working with langchain in a Colab notebook to get a feel for how these all fit together. Also, the tools here are incredibly simple and easy to understand (very new) so looking at, say, https://github.com/minimaxir/simpleaichat/tree/main/simpleai... or https://github.com/smol-ai/developer and digging in to the prompts, what goes in system vs assistant roles, how you gourde the LLM, etc.

This notebook from the repo I linked to is a concise example, and the reason you would want to optimize prompts.

Fair question.

Evaluate refers to the phase after training to check if the training is good.

Usually the flow goes training -> evaluation -> deployment (what you called inference). This project is aimed for evaluation. Evaluation can be slow (might even be slower than training if you're finetuning on a small domain specific subset)!

So there are [quite](https://github.com/microsoft/promptbench) [a](https://github.com/confident-ai/deepeval) [few](https://github.com/openai/evals) [frameworks](https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness) working on evaluation, however, all of them are quite slow, because LLM are slow if you don't have infinite money. [This](https://github.com/open-compass/opencompass) one tries to speed up by parallelizing on multiple computers, but none of them takes advantage of the fact that many evaluation queries might be similar and all try to evaluate on all given queries. And that's where this project might come in handy.

OpenAI open sourced their evals framework. You can use it to evaluate different models but also your entire prompt chain setup. https://github.com/openai/evals

They also have a registry of evals built in.

"What if" is all these "existential risk" conversations ever are.

Where is your evidence that we're approaching human level AGI, let alone SuperIntelligence? Because ChatGPT can (sometimes) approximate sophisticated conversation and deep knowledge?

How about some evidence that ChatGPT isn't even close? Just clone and run OpenAI's own evals repo https://github.com/openai/evals on the GPT-4 API.

It performs terribly on novel logic puzzles and exercises that a clever child could learn to do in an afternoon (there are some good chess evals, and I submitted one asking it to simulate a Forth machine).

Ah well, I think you just got lucky then, I did the same with the survey. I'll be compulsively checking mine all day today lol. People on Reddit like to say that if you did an Eval which is basically a performance test natively run using code on GPT models, then OpenAI is more likely to favor you when they’re releasing new features. If ydk, then I guess that answers that.

You can get GPT 4 access by submitting an eval if gets merged (https://github.com/openai/evals). Here's the one that got me access[1]

Although from the blog post it looks like they're planning to open up to everyone soon, so that may happen before you get through the evals backlog.

1: https://github.com/openai/evals/pull/778

来源：GitHub - openai/evals: Evals is a framework for evaluating LLMs and LLM systems, and an open-source registry of benchmarks. 8