@@ -24,10 +24,10 @@ image: ./preview.png
24
24
We are excited to announce that CodeRabbit has acquired
25
25
[ FluxNinja] ( https://fluxninja.com ) , a startup that provides a platform for
26
26
building scalable generative AI applications. This acquisition will allow us to
27
- ship new use cases at an industrial-scale while sustaining our rapidly growing
28
- user base. FluxNinja's Aperture product provides advanced rate-limiting,
29
- caching, and request prioritization capabilities for building reliable and
30
- cost-effective AI workflows.
27
+ ship new use cases at an industrial-pace while sustaining our rapidly growing
28
+ user base. FluxNinja's Aperture product provides advanced rate & concurrency
29
+ limiting, caching, and request prioritization capabilities that are essential
30
+ for reliable and cost-effective AI workflows.
31
31
32
32
<!-- truncate-->
33
33
@@ -73,16 +73,17 @@ platform that can solve the following problems:
73
73
tricked into divulging sensitive information, which could include our base
74
74
prompts.
75
75
76
- - Validating quality of inference : Generative AI models consume text and output
76
+ - Validation & quality checks : Generative AI models consume text and output
77
77
text. On the other hand, traditional code and APIs required structured data.
78
78
Therefore, the prompt service needs to expose a RESTful or gRPC API that can
79
79
be consumed by the other services in the workflow. We touched upon the
80
80
rendering of prompts based on structured requests in the previous point, but
81
- the prompt service also needs to parse and validate responses into structured
82
- data. This is a non-trivial problem, and multiple tries are often required to
83
- ensure that the response is thorough. For instance, we found that when we pack
84
- multiple files in a single code review prompt, AI models often miss hunks
85
- within a file or miss files altogether, leading to incomplete reviews.
81
+ the prompt service also needs to parse, validate responses into structured
82
+ data and measure the quality of the inference. This is a non-trivial problem,
83
+ and multiple tries are often required to ensure that the response is thorough
84
+ and meets the quality bar. For instance, we found that when we pack multiple
85
+ files in a single code review prompt, AI models often miss hunks within a file
86
+ or miss files altogether, leading to incomplete reviews.
86
87
87
88
- Observability: One key challenge with generative AI and prompting is that it's
88
89
inherently non-deterministic. The same prompt can result in vastly different
0 commit comments