llm-ls

> I'd have expected that the main lever the product has in being better than others is having a custom model that understands code edits much more than others. True, but this is not something this particular product would solve. There are already models specifically trained to work on code. What's appealing to me is the flexibility of being able to choose which one to use, rather than my workflow being tied to a specific product or company. > the IDE integration seems to be the "easy bit" I admittedly haven't researched this much, but this is not currently the case. There is no generic API for LLMs that IDEs can plug into, so all plugins must target a specific model. We ultimately need an equivalent of a Language Server Protocol for LLMs, and while such a project exists[1], it looks to be in its infancy, understandably so. [1]: https://gi