[weitendorf]

We’ve been working on this problem off and on for over a year now. Many models bake knowledge of particular tools/libraries/patterns into their weights very well and others quite poorly. In my experience Claude is quite good at integrating the dog.ceo API and noticeably ignorant when it comes to Postgres features, and it knows gcloud commands enough to very confidently and consistently hallucinate arguments.

We’ve baked a solution to this into our product, so if anybody is working on an API/SDK/etc feel free to contact me if your users are running into problems using LLMs to integrate them.

One thing we’ve noticed is that subtle changes to library/api integration prompts’ context can be surprisingly impactful. LLMs do very well with example commands and explicit instructions to consider X, Y, and Z. If you just dump an API reference and information that implicitly suggests that X, Y, and Z might be beneficial, they won’t reliably make the logical leaps you want them to unless you let them iterate or “think” (spend more tokens) more. But you can’t as easily provide an example for everything, and the ones you do will bias the models towards them, so you may need a bit of both.

[EGreg]

I made a provisional patent this year, about how exactly I would solve this problem. Imagine hiring a "team of developers" who can learn your library and iterate 24/7, improving things, doing support, even letting the pointy-haired boss turn his ideas into reality in a forked sandbox on the weekend.

For the last 15 years I've been writing against software patents, and producing open source software that cost me about $1M to develop, but in the case of AI, I have started to make an exception. I have also rethought how I am going to do open source vs closed source in my AI business. A few weeks ago I posted on HN asking whether it's a good idea, and no one responded: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44425545

(If anyone wants to work with me on this, hit me up, email is in my profile)

[weitendorf]

I hope we don’t have to challenge it!

We’re trying to build a similar kind of experience but for both “sides” of the problem: software provider and software users/integrators.

[EGreg]

I guess that's why patents are annoying. I have been Mr. Open Source and against intellectual property for most of the past 15 years. But with AI companies rampantly taking everyone's work and repurposing it, and with VC companies not being very eager to invest in open source, I'm taking a different tack with my AI ventures.

My first two companies are radically open source, and no one cared:

https://github.com/Qbix

https://github.com/Intercoin

And this is what we're doing now with AI, but it's not going to be as open: https://engageusers.ai/deck.pdf

Don't worry, we're not looking to get into it with some random other projects. It's mostly to protect our business model against the Big Tech and enterprises.

[Terretta]

From the deck:

  Phase 2:
  7. Sell shares to MS, Oracle, IBM
  8. They do most of the Enterprise Sales

How comfortable are you that these firms do this and do this this way? MS, for example, doesn't really sell to a majority of its customers, they support VARs. And for IBM, do you mean Kendryl? Is your product a gateway to their products, generally causing a bundle to be sold? Are you familiar with firms like yours that have an arrangement where these enterprises bought shares then go sell on the startup's behalf? Note, it is indeed helpful if you can claim you're patented, but not to protect your "business model" (too many ways to work around a patent, or more likely, get it invalidated), more to suggest you have something.

See also: https://patentskart.com/how-to-invalidate-a-patent-in-10-eas...

[weitendorf]

I think I gave you product feedback on Qbix at some point in the past. I also know several founders who’ve secured funding for open source products and built successful businesses off of them. Open-core is pretty popular out here in the Bay Area.

One thing I’ve learned since staring a company is that early on, your greatest asset is trust in your founder/brand, because it’s the only reason for someone to pay you for something until you get your shit together. I’ve personally had a hard time noticing it in myself sometimes, but I think it’s easy to overlook how outward signaling that might look like distrust (eg making users sign NDAs) damages your own ability to build trust. Since early startups tend to be considered untrustworthy by default it can be really counterproductive. Anyway, I appreciate your non-aggression policy

[EGreg]

Would you consider arranging a call to discuss our respective projects? If you're building something along these lines, then I think we might end up joining forces.

I've always preferred collaboration and joining forces building on each other's work, than competition and incompatibility.

https://calendly.com/engageusers/meeting

[tantalor]

Boooo software patents.

[owebmaster]

I'm working on something similar and would love to see your patent trying to stop me doing it.

[dingnuts]

don't worry everybody, this guy's profile shows he was a blockchain booster five minutes ago, just another grifter, nothin to see here

[EGreg]

I'd actually consider your criticism seriously, if it was anything other than the usual HN "saw the word blockchain, did an immediate TDLR with the word grift" regardless of what was done or built.

If you had anything substantive to back up what you're saying, we could discuss it, but since you don't... well, I'm actually disappointed but w/e.