undefined | Better HN

0 pointshirsin10mo ago0 comments

Indeed! But seemingly only for the actual object representation - it's a start, and I wonder if JSON is uniquely suited to LLMs because it's so text-first.

0 comments

neuroelectron10mo ago

I think JSON is preferred because it adds more complexity.

sroussey10mo ago

I think it works because json is verbose and reinforces what everything is in each record.

visarga10mo ago

From this point of view XML offers all that and named brackets.

1 more reply

sitkack10mo ago

Hey, at least they didn't use yaml-rpc.

_raz10mo ago

toml-rpc anyone? :)

immibis10mo ago

I understand those with experience have found that XML works better because it's more redundant.

wisemang10mo ago

Is it the redundancy? Or is it because markup is a more natural way to annotate language, which obviously is what LLMs are all about?

Genuinely curious, I don’t know the answer. But intuitively JSON is nice for easy to read payloads for transport but to be able to provide rich context around specific parts of text seems right up XML’s alley?

giantrobot10mo ago

The lack of inline context is a failing of JSON and a very useful feature of XML.

Two simple but useful examples would be inline markup to define a series of numbers as a date or telephone number or a particular phrase tagged as being a different language from the main document. Inline semantic tags would let LLMs better understand the context of those tokens. JSON can't really do that while it's a native aspect of XML.

solidasparagus10mo ago

Or is is because most text in existence is XML - or more specifically HTML.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse