I agree that it's annoying to have competing standards, but when dealing with a lot of unknowns it's better to allow divergence and exploration. It's a worse use of time to quibble over the best way to do things when we have no meaningful data yet to justify any decision. Companies need freedom to experiment on the best approach for all these new AI use cases. We'll then learn what is great/terrible in each approach. Over time, we should expect and encourage consolidation around a single set of standards.

▲

pscanf 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> when dealing with a lot of unknowns it's better to allow divergence and exploration

I completely agree, though I'm personally sitting out all of these protocols/frameworks/libraries. In 6 months time half of them will have been abandoned, and the other half will have morphed into something very different and incompatible.

For the time being, I just build things from scratch, which–as others have noted¹–is actually not that difficult, gives you understanding of what goes on under the hood, and doesn't tie you to someone else's innovation pace (whether it's higher or lower).

¹ https://fly.io/blog/everyone-write-an-agent/

	▲	kridsdale3 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I recently heard that when automobiles were new the USA quickly ended up in a state with 80 competing manufacturing brands. In a couple decades, the market figured out what customers actually want and what styles and features mattered, and the competition ecosystem consolidated to 5 brands. The same happened with GPUs in the 90s. When Jensen formed Nvidia there were 70 other companies selling Graphics Cards that you could put in a PCI slot. Now there are 2.