←back to thread

169 points constantinum | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.602s | source | bottom
1. thih9 ◴[] No.40714918[source]
This is an article written by BAML that shows BAML as the best.

Also, BAML seems to be a commercial product with no clear pricing.

> Our paid capabilities only start if you use Boundary Studio, which focuses on Monitoring, Collecting Feedback, and Improving your AI pipelines. Contact us for pricing details at contact_boundaryml.com

replies(3): >>40714966 #>>40715039 #>>40715330 #
2. hellovai ◴[] No.40714966[source]
our paid product is still in Beta actually as we're continuing to build it out, but BAML itself is and always will be open source (runs fully locally as well - no extra network calls).

in terms of parsing, I do think we're likely the best approach as of now. Most other libraries do reprompting or rely on constraining grammars which require owning the model. Reprompting = slow + $$, constraining grammars = require owning the model. we just tried a new approach: parse the output in a more clever way.

3. martypitt ◴[] No.40715039[source]
> Also, BAML seems to be a commercial product with no clear pricing.

You've only presented half the story. They're also Open Source (Apache 2.0), with code on github.

As you mention, some features are gated, but they seem to have a fairly solid OSS offering.

replies(1): >>40715125 #
4. thih9 ◴[] No.40715125[source]
Yes. Their OSS offering is described in the article though. References to the paid offering are only on the landing page. My grandparent comment is the missing half to the article’s half of story.
5. joatmon-snoo ◴[] No.40715330[source]
Author here! I very deliberately avoided making that claim; the table is actually very unsorted right now, in no small part because all the solutions in the space satisfy a very different set of usage criteria - some folks use Python, others use TS, yet others want Golang or Java or something else; some want support for Ollama/llama.cpp/vLLM, others are looking for OpenAI/Anthropic support.

That being said, if you have suggestions for how we can make this table more objective, we’re all ears!

replies(1): >>40715469 #
6. ◴[] No.40715469[source]