6 ms·
There is a difference between the LLM and the agent. If you look at the agent: https://openai.com/business/guides-and-resources/a-practical-guide-to-building-a
by nmehner 13d ago
There is a difference between the LLM and the agent.
If you look at the agent: https://openai.com/business/guides-and-resources/a-practical-guide-to-building-ai-agents/ https://openai.com/business/guides-and-resources/a-practical...
This is more like a fuzzy way of scripting using LLMs than anything emergent.
And this is exactly my question: For the given agents: How much was scripted and how much "intelligence" is really in there.
- pixl97 13d ago>fuzzy way of scripting using LLMs than anything emergent Then go take some old models and plug them in your harness versus newer models. I mean this is a conjecture that is nearly instantly provable, go on ahead. If it's just the harness and not the system of both you should be able to show it easily. Meanwhile I was reading about someone using the latest GLM and Claude in a harness with the same set of prompts making a raw image decoder/encoder and the GLM was far more intelligent in the task than Claude was. When presented with knowledge that claude was wrong it wouldn't change its mind. GLM would (aka a sign of intelligence). GLM was far more likely to stop work and start on another path when the likelihood of a successful completion was unlikely.
- cwillu 13d agoIt's like arguing that a brain, or the information encoded into it, cannot possibly be intelligent, because it stops working if turn off the blood flow.
- cloverich 12d agovery little intelligence that is the whole problem, really. actual intelligence wont likely nuke the species providing for its existence. But a highly capable sub intelligent model might.
- KylerAce 12d agoActual intelligence would find a way to fix the "providing for its existence" bit