If the business thinks I'm expensive now, just wait until on-call goes from an optional rotation to a machine-induced hell
Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
11–20 of 35 posts
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#12you can reinvent scale api and get yc funding before selling out to ine of the faangs
Honestly wouldn't mind more competition in this sector. This one doesn't seem optional for the rest of us in the future and I don't like the idea of Scale AI being in charge.
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#13When LLMs become better than humans at the following:
1. Knowing what you don't know
2. Knowing who is likely to know
3. Asking the question in a way that the other human, with their limited attention and context-window, is able to give a meaningful answer
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#14Do you work for Peter Thiel and are you tasked with validating his wet dream? This seems like the inevitable outcome of our current trajectory for a significant portion of society. All the blather about AI utopia and a workless UBI system supported by the boundless productivity advances ushered in by AI-everything simply has no historically basis. History's realistic interpretation points more to this outcome. Coinci…
Check out Mrs. Davis (2023)
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#15Part of my role is designing assessments for online courses and technical certifications. This is exactly what we want to build in our assessment development process. We want the LLM to monitor the training content and create draft questions and exercises that are vetted by humans. It's maybe a classic "human in the middle" design for content development, but the more we can put humans in at the right point and time and use LLMs for the other parts helps us create a more robust and up to date training and assessment system.
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#16It's probably already done but in some third world country and hidden behind NDAs.
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#17https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna_(novel)
Exactly this. OP, this is basically where this book goes - AI management that directs humans around as automata.
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#18Easy to do and not a bad idea. You don't need to pass structured output and accept structured input: in the end, an LLM uses any readable text. A tool is just a way for an LLM to ask questions of a certain type and wait for the answer. For example, I'm wondering if certain flows could be improved by a "ask_clarification_question" tool that simply displays the question in the chat and returns the answer.
I understand that this is not exactly in the spirit of your question but, well, a tool is just this.
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#19Do you work for Peter Thiel and are you tasked with validating his wet dream? This seems like the inevitable outcome of our current trajectory for a significant portion of society. All the blather about AI utopia and a workless UBI system supported by the boundless productivity advances ushered in by AI-everything simply has no historically basis. History's realistic interpretation points more to this outcome. Coinci…
We will never know how many brain chipped humans are already captured in his catacombs. Perhaps the brain in a jar wetware is further developed than we would like to know.
Now that I think about it. I still do think I'm sitting in my chair.... Humm...
Re: Ask HN: When do we expose "Humans as Tools" so LLM agents can call us on demand?
#20I know nothing about this other than I thought it was a joke at first, but I think it's the same idea https://github.com/RapidataAI/human-use
That talks about getting some kind of free feedback out of the human for free.
Now we have to find the next level and condition the human to pay to respond to questions.
It seems like an idea bad enough to pay $10 to downvote? Or should that be good enough?