[mayank]

Very interesting! I wonder to what extent this assumption is true in tying completions to traditional code autocomplete.

> One of the biggest constraints on the retrieval implementation is latency

If I’m getting a multi line block of code written automagically for me based on comments and the like, I’d personally value quality over latency and be more than happy to wait on a spinner. And I’d also be happy to map separate shortcuts for when I’m prepared to do so (avoiding the need to detect my intent).

[ado__dev]

This is great feedback and something we are looking at in regards to Cody. We value developer choice and at the moment for Chat developers can choose between various LLM models (Claude 3 Opus, GPT 4-Turbo, Mixtral 8x7b) that offer different benefits.

For autocomplete, at the moment we only support Starcoder because it has given us the best return on latency + quality, but we'd def love to support (and give users the choice to set an LLM of their choice, so if they prefer waiting longer for higher quality results, they should be able to)

You can do that with our local Ollama support, but that's still experimental and YMMV. Here's how to set it up: https://sourcegraph.com/blog/local-code-completion-with-olla...

[dsissitka]

> We value developer choice and at the moment for Chat developers can choose between various LLM models (Claude 3 Opus, GPT 4-Turbo, Mixtral 8x7b) that offer different benefits.

I wish y'all would put a little more effort into user experience. When you go to subscribe it says:

> Claude Instant 1.2, Claude 2, ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo, ChatGPT 4 Turbo Preview

Trying to figure out what's supported was tedious enough[0] that I just ended up renewing my Copilot subscription instead.

[0] Your contact page for "information about products and purchasing" talks about scheduling a meeting. One of your welcome emails points us to your Discord but then your Discord points us to your forum.

[ado__dev]

Thank you for the feedback. I totally agree there and we'll address this.