| ▲ | teaearlgraycold a day ago | |||||||
RAG, as far as I understand, is a term that came about before LLM tool-calling was as prevalent. Your options were to have an LLM hallucinate up a response, or instead do a [document -> chunk -> embedding -> vector db -> query -> context window] pipeline. I haven't heard anyone talk of LLMs + web search or other tool calls as RAG, even though if you pull apart the semantics the term is applicable. In fact I don't hear people talk about RAG much at all. I suppose much of what people were trying to solve with document chunking/embedding pipelines has been solved with bigger models and tool calls. And along with that change in tooling we have left behind the term "RAG", which leaves it attached to the concept of those pipelines. | ||||||||
| ▲ | 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
| [deleted] | ||||||||
| ▲ | Folcon 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I do wonder if the term will make a comeback, Retrieval Augmented Generation as a concept is a fairly fundamental idea, or maybe it's considered too generic which is why tool calling is used in favour if it? The problem with tool calling is it's too generic in my mind, maybe RAG will make a return when we get around to having different flavours of it, digging into the rich vein that is Information Retrieval Also is it just me that doesn't like this sort of wording? > agent has to hold I find it very generic, I'd much prefer process or recall or any term that indicates what the agent is doing with tokens in that context | ||||||||
| ||||||||