6 ms·
If this dropped just five years ago no one would understand what on earth this software does . In many ways I still don't. Incredible the development we've seen
by bedstefar 26d ago
If this dropped just five years ago no one would understand what on earth this software does . In many ways I still don't. Incredible the development we've seen lately, wonder what will stick and what won't?
- deadbabe 26d agoWhy does everyone assume people in the past were idiots? They probably would have figured out what this was for after some critical thinking. Remember those people wrote massive complicated software by hand.
- bedstefar 26d agoI didn't imply people in the past were idiots, but how on earth would anyone know what an _agent harness_ is, say?
- deadbabe 26d agoBecause the term or concept of “AI Agent” existed long before LLMs??? Jesus…
- techpression 26d agoThe concept of agents is from the 1970’s, I love how some people think the idea is new. Sure, they didn’t have the LLM component, but the rest is the same.
- dist-epoch 26d agoAlphaGo already had a harness. An AI in a loop with tools is not exactly a Black Swan.
- grey-area 26d agoIt’s actually a funny oxymoron if you unpack it - agent implies autonomy and intelligence, harnesses are for unintelligent beasts of burden to control them. So you’re right, it makes absolutely no sense and would be hard to decipher, but does perfectly capture the contradictions inherent in attempts to treat dumb LLM word generators as intelligent independent agents.
- ihaveajob 26d agoI don't think it's an oxymoron at all. An expert climber still uses a harness for safety, even though they won't (typically) try to jump off the wall.
- grey-area 26d agoThey would 1 times out of 10 if they were an LLM. Then say sorry, you’re absolutely right I shouldn’t have jumped off the cliff.
- Obscurity4340 26d agoFrom beyond the grave
- qarl2 25d agoYou know - that's why we use 2 agents for any important decision. 1 in 10 becomes 1 in 100. And you can get any degree of accuracy you desire. If only humans were so reliable. Why are you ignoring basic principles of engineering?
- oasisaimlessly 24d agoThat only works if failures are uncorrelated. Why are you ignoring basic principles of engineering?
- qarl2 24d agoHEH. Never used agents, huh? The failures are mostly uncorrelated. Why are you ignoring basic principles of engineering (knowing what you're talking about before opening your mouth)?
- idiotsecant 26d agoYou're addicted to being mad
- slashdave 26d agoDiscovery is part of good design. It is easy to confuse complexity with sophistication.