[HN Gopher] Open Sourcing Cody - Sourcegraph's AI-enabled editor...
___________________________________________________________________
Open Sourcing Cody - Sourcegraph's AI-enabled editor assistant
Author : michlim
Score : 73 points
Date : 2023-03-28 11:33 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (about.sourcegraph.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (about.sourcegraph.com)
| qwick23 wrote:
| Is it an answer to GitHub Co-Pilot?
| beyang wrote:
| We don't have autocomplete yet, which is what Copilot is mainly
| used for. But we're working on it, with the same context-aware
| mechanisms that provide a quality lift on the Q&A side.
| wsxiaoys wrote:
| Cody is more like a wrapper on top of GPT API (gpt-3.5-turbo)
| endpoint, with related code snippets embed in prompt. It's not
| competing the low latency scenario that Github Copilot seats
| in.
|
| There're recent works show a potential of beating Copilot's
| performance (e.g https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12570) with much
| smaller models (500M vs 10B+).
|
| Inspired by these work, I'm building Tabby
| (https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby), a OSS GitHub Copilot
| alternative. Hopefully it could make low cost AI coding
| accessible to everyone.
| wackget wrote:
| FYI, Tabby is the name of an existing open-source product:
| https://github.com/Eugeny/tabby/
| [deleted]
| michlim wrote:
| This is probably one of the most sincere and personal product
| announcements from a corporation I've read.
| michlim wrote:
| > There's actually a growing body of evidence that shows the
| emergent ability of LLMs to reason (the so-called "chain of
| thought" ability) arises only when LLMs are trained on huge
| amounts of code, not just natural language. Natural language
| training data provides the ability to sound human, but it is the
| programming language training data that provides LLMs with the
| ability to be logical.
|
| Good on Sourcegraph to contribute back to the open source
| community. LLMs rely more on open source code than meets the eye.
| skybrian wrote:
| I wonder if there is anything like this for a notebook-style UI?
| I'm a fan of how Observable does it.
| beyang wrote:
| You're a mind-reader!
|
| We currently have a notebooks UI (e.g.,
| https://sourcegraph.com/notebooks/Tm90ZWJvb2s6MTg1NA==), but
| the plan is to roll Cody into this and make it a super rich UI
| for learning/understanding anything and everything about code
| skybrian wrote:
| Sounds promising, but that looks to me like a different kind
| of notebook? It seems to be a way to write documentation with
| some fancy features.
|
| An Observable notebook is a standalone program, sort of a
| cross between a makefile and a spreadsheet. You write code
| snippets in JavaScript to calculate things and it
| automatically recalculates them when dependencies change.
| It's pretty powerful since you can import JavaScript
| libraries (to draw graphs, for example) and call API's.
|
| Examples:
| https://observablehq.com/collection/@skybrian/digital-
| signal...
| mlboss wrote:
| How does it compare to github copilot ?
| jarpineh wrote:
| I am confused of what is being open sourced here. What I've
| managed to read from announcements and README I find myself being
| funnelled to Discord and Sourcegraph cloud services. I'm trying
| to understand what is what here.
|
| I think there's three components that are needed to have the best
| (admittedly enticing) experience: Cody itself, Sourcegraph at the
| background (optionally) and an LLM called Claude from Anthropic.
| Claude is very much proprietary. Sourcegraph is open core, but to
| use it as a Cody's "helper" do I need those proprietary features?
| Without Claude and Sourcegraph Enterprise/Cloud what can Cody do,
| say with LLama based LLM, should this integration happen?
|
| Again, what I've read, taken at face value, seems really
| promising. I've used Sourcegraph a few times in the past and
| sometimes wondered how it would benefit in my commercial work.
| Having an LLM could make this a next level tool, possibly
| something that regular chat-type LLM based services don't
| currently do.
| beyang wrote:
| Cody is being open sourced under Apache 2. The source code is
| here: https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegrap
| h/-.... The analog would be if GitHub open-sourced Copilot but
| didn't open source GitHub (Sourcegraph is open core, similar to
| GitLab, with all the code publicly available and the
| enterprise-licensed code under "enterprise" directories).
|
| The network dependencies are Cody --> Sourcegraph -->
| Anthropic. Cody does need to talk to a chat-based LLM to
| generate responses. (It hits other APIs specific to Sourcegraph
| that are optional.)
|
| We are working on making the chat-based LLM swappable.
| Anthropic has been a great partner so far and they are stellar
| to work with. But our customers have asked for the ability to
| use GPT-4 as well as the ability to self-host, which means we
| are exploring open source models. Actively working on that at
| the moment.
|
| Sorry for any lack of clarity here. We would like to have Cody
| (the 100% open source editor plugin) talk to a whole bunch of
| dev tools (OSS and proprietary). We think it's totally fine to
| have proprietary tools in your stack, but would prefer to live
| in a world where the thing that integrates all that info in
| your editor using the magic of AI and LLMs to be open source.
| This fits into our broader principle of selling to
| companies/teams, and making tools free and open for individual
| devs.
| beyang wrote:
| I'll add if folks want to submit a PR to turn on other LLMs
| (or have Cody talk to the base LLM provider directly, sans
| Sourcegraph), we're happy to accept those. Literally the only
| thing preventing us from doing that right now is
| prioritization (our team is 4 people and we're scrambling to
| improve context fetching and implement autocomplete rn
| :sweat-laugh-emoji:)
| jarpineh wrote:
| Thank you for your response. I think I get it now. When I
| first read the announcement I jumped at the thought that the
| entirety was being open sourced. Perhaps I got a bit clouded
| through that. I understand your needs as a company with a
| business plan and expect nothing is free. When the option to
| ask here in this discussion arose I took it, since I couldn't
| figure this out elsewhere.
|
| Ability to use other LLMs, especially open ones, is
| promising. I guess it's mostly a matter of how APIs are
| standardised across these products. I mostly use Copilot and
| truly hope things can get better than that. Especially the
| lack of control is infuriating, and tendency to go off on
| repeats for no discernible reason. On paper Cody looks to do
| better here.
| beyang wrote:
| Hopefully it's not just on paper :) There are a lot of
| rough edges still, but we hope to iron them out as quickly
| as we can.
|
| One of our core design principles for Cody is to make it
| "unmagic". Like, the AI is magic enough, but the rest of
| what we're doing in terms of orchestrating the LLMs in
| combination with various other data sources and backends
| should be clear and transparent to the user. This allows
| for greater understandability and steerability (e.g., if
| Cody infers the wrong context, maybe you can just tell it
| the file it _should_ be reading and then regenerate the
| answer).
|
| Copilot is a great tool, and Oege de Moor, Alex Graveley,
| and the whole GitHub Next team deserve huge credit for
| shipping it. That being said, I really want the standard AI
| coding assistant to be open, and there's been a ton of
| innovation in LLMs since Copilot's initial launch that
| doesn't seem to have been rolled in yet. I think this is a
| case where being open means we can accelerate the pace of
| innovation.
| dmoy wrote:
| Okay I wanna know if Steve Yegge named this after Cody, one of
| the best people on the the Google-internal grok/kythe team that
| Yegge also started.
| jcuenod wrote:
| Any plans for a neovim plugin?
| jdorfman wrote:
| On the roadmap, no ETA.
| beyang wrote:
| The best way to accelerate this is to bug
| https://twitter.com/teej_dv on Twitter. Tell him Beyang sent
| you and that he thinks he can have an Emacs plugin out faster
| :P
| jdlyga wrote:
| Wrestling has more than one AI Assistant.
| dabei wrote:
| The decision to open source is surprising at first glance. But it
| makes a lot of sense. With the greatly enhanced coding
| productivity, the ROI for tweaking open source tools is quite
| high. This puts closed source tools at a significant disadvantage
| in terms of customization. They are a little late to the AI
| coding assistant market, this move enables them to capture market
| share rapidly and slow down the competitors in building up data
| moat.
| dgellow wrote:
| How much would it cost to use Cody with Sourcegraph? I don't see
| a price in the article
| jdorfman wrote:
| Edit: It's free
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| This is not a clear answer to a question about the cost.
|
| Don't be a car salesman.
| jdorfman wrote:
| Sorry wasn't my intention. It's free.
| [deleted]
| beyang wrote:
| Cody is free to use and doesn't strictly require Sourcegraph.
| It can make use of Sourcegraph APIs (e.g., code search, soon
| find refs) to improve its context fetching. We hope to
| integrate other dev tool APIs (e.g., monitoring, tracing, etc.)
| as well.
|
| Sourcegraph is also free to use and downloadable as a local app
| (https://docs.sourcegraph.com/app) or you can use
| sourcegraph.com for open source. Our intention is to sell to
| teams/companies, while making tools for individual devs free to
| use. There have been a few cases in the past where we've
| misstepped and come across as selling to individual devs. If
| this ever happens, please flag to me
| (https://twitter.com/beyang) or sqs (https://twitter.com/sqs)
| directly and we'll correct it.
| silverlake wrote:
| Does Cody work with App (local Sourcegraph)?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-28 23:01 UTC)