> you have to manage prompts, finite context windows, and integrations with other APIs.
For many non-straightforward tasks, a dev doubts somebody else handles these problems with care. Who can guarantee that a general-purpose handling of these could be better than the specific team that aims to solve the problem?
Finite context windows are, for many complex tasks, are still a problem unsolved, only heuristics applied. You basically manage injection of cues when you hit that finite context limit. However it's not guaranteed that you'll select good cues.
Handling prompts with a vector db is still not the same thing for serving long contexts. Details of how that vector db is built in the first place can also be critical to the solution.
In other words, the product must be targeted at people whose first thought is not "I can do it better than you", but rather "I want these outcomes but I don't know how to achieve them and I'm glad you have a solution".
Yeah super fair, agreed that general-purpose handling will rarely (if ever) beat a specifically dedicated team - anything specific and critical will still require custom work. That being said, we think that there are some straightforward applications that can be annoying to solve and are reasonably generalizable.
For many non-straightforward tasks, a dev doubts somebody else handles these problems with care. Who can guarantee that a general-purpose handling of these could be better than the specific team that aims to solve the problem?
Finite context windows are, for many complex tasks, are still a problem unsolved, only heuristics applied. You basically manage injection of cues when you hit that finite context limit. However it's not guaranteed that you'll select good cues.
Handling prompts with a vector db is still not the same thing for serving long contexts. Details of how that vector db is built in the first place can also be critical to the solution.