Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: Use LARGE models for responses #853

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2024
Merged

fix: Use LARGE models for responses #853

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 5, 2024

Conversation

lalalune
Copy link
Member

@lalalune lalalune commented Dec 5, 2024

This PR makes the small models big. Apparently we've been using small models for interactions and message responses, but this is wrong.

@lalalune lalalune changed the title Make models big Use LARGE models for responses Dec 5, 2024
@shakkernerd shakkernerd changed the title Use LARGE models for responses fix: Use LARGE models for responses Dec 5, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@monilpat monilpat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Thanks so much for doing this :) Was always confused by this lol - appreciate the fix!

@jkbrooks jkbrooks merged commit 05f279a into main Dec 5, 2024
3 of 5 checks passed
@jkbrooks jkbrooks deleted the shaw/upgrade-models branch December 5, 2024 19:28
dsldsl pushed a commit to dsldsl/eliza that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2024
Kevin-Mok pushed a commit to Kevin-Mok/eliza that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2024
@seanbhart
Copy link

Why hardcode any values? Hardcoding makes the model settings very limited and forces developers to fork the library just to use a different model. Allowing them to be set in the character file is much more useful. This is what the character file model settings used to look like:

{
    "settings": {
        "model": "medium",
        "temperature": 0.45
    }
}

This PR allows this much more flexible approach:
#845

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants