Live data from Hacker News

Building Effective "Agents"

anthropic.com

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#31
post #11

This is by far the most practical piece of writing I've seen on the subject of "agents" - it includes actionable definitions, then splits most of the value out into "workflows" and describes those in depth with example applications. There's also a cookbook with useful code examples: https://github.com/anthropics/anthropic-cookbook/tree/main/p... Blogged about this here: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/20/building-…

Thanks for all the write-ups on LLMs, you're on top of the news and it makes it way easier to follow what's happening and the existing implementations by following your blog instead.

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#33
post #27

Agents are still a misaligned concept in AI. While this article offers a lot in orchestration, memory (only mentioned once in the post) and governance are not really mentioned. The latter is important to increase reliability -- something Ilya Sutskever mentioned to be important as agents can be less deterministic in their responses. Interestingly, "agency" i.e., the ability of the agent to make own decisions is not m…

That URL says Not Found.

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#34

Have been building agents for past 2 years, my tl;dr is that: Agents are Interfaces, Not Implementations The current zeitgeist seems to think of agents as passthrough agents: e.g. a lite wrapper around a core that's almost 100% a LLM. The most effective agents I've seen, and have built, are largely traditional software engineering with a sprinkling of LLM calls for "LLM hard" problems. LLM hard problems are problems…

When trying to do everything, they end up doing nothing.

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#35

My personal view is that the roadmap to AGI requires an LLM acting as a prefrontal cortex: something designed to think about thinking. It would decide what circumstances call for double-checking facts for accuracy, which would hopefully catch hallucinations. It would write its own acceptance criteria for its answers, etc. It's not clear to me how to train each of the sub-models required, or how big (or small!) they n…

Interesting, because I almost think of it the opposite way. LLMs are like system 1 thinking, fast, intuitive, based on what you consider most probable based on what you know/have experienced/have been trained on. System 2 thinking is different, more careful, slower, logical, deductive, more like symbolic reasoning. And then some metasystem to tie these two together and make them work cohesively.

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#36
post #11

This is by far the most practical piece of writing I've seen on the subject of "agents" - it includes actionable definitions, then splits most of the value out into "workflows" and describes those in depth with example applications. There's also a cookbook with useful code examples: https://github.com/anthropics/anthropic-cookbook/tree/main/p... Blogged about this here: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/20/building-…

How do you protect from compounding errors?

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#37
post #27

Agents are still a misaligned concept in AI. While this article offers a lot in orchestration, memory (only mentioned once in the post) and governance are not really mentioned. The latter is important to increase reliability -- something Ilya Sutskever mentioned to be important as agents can be less deterministic in their responses. Interestingly, "agency" i.e., the ability of the agent to make own decisions is not m…

That URL says Not Found.

Seems to be https://jdsemrau.substack.com/, also in their bio.

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#38

> Agents can be used for open-ended problems where it’s difficult or impossible to predict the required number of steps, and where you can’t hardcode a fixed path. The LLM will potentially operate for many turns, and you must have some level of trust in its decision-making. Agents' autonomy makes them ideal for scaling tasks in trusted environments. The questions then become: 1. When can you (i.e. a person who wants…

Just take any example and think how a human would break it down with decision trees.

You are building an AI system to respond to your email.

The first agent decides whether the new email should be responded to, yes or no.

If no, it can send it to another LLM call that decides to archive it or leave it in the inbox for the human.

If yes, it sends it to classifier that decides what type of response is required.

Maybe there are some emails like for your work that require something brief like “congrats!” to all those new feature launch emails you get internally.

Or others that are inbound sales emails that need to go out to another system that fetches product related knowledge to craft a response with the right context. Followed by a checker call that makes sure the response follows brand guidelines.

The point is all of these steps are completely hypothetical but you can imagine how loosely providing some set of instructions and function calls and procedural limits can easily classify things and minimize error rate.

You can do this for any workflow by creatively combining different function calls, recursion, procedural limits, etc. And if you build multiple different decision trees/workflows, you can A/B test those and use LLM-as-a-judge to score the performance. Especially if you’re working on a task with lots of example outputs.

As for trusted environments, assume every single LLM call has been hijacked and don’t trust its input/output and you’ll be good. I put mine in their own cloudflare workers where they can’t do any damage beyond giving an odd response to the user.

Re: Building Effective "Agents"

#40

Key to understanding the power of agentic workflows is tool usage. You don't have to write logic anymore, you simply give an agent the tools it needs to accomplish a task and ask it to do so. Models like the latest Sonnet have gotten so advanced now that coding abilities are reaching superhuman levels. All the hallucinations and "jitter" of models from 1-2 years ago has gone away. They can be reasoned on now and you…

> you simply give an agent the tools That isn’t simple. There is a lot of nuance in tool definition.

Depends on what you’re building. A general assistant is going to have a lot of nuance. A well defined agent like a tutor only has so many tools to call upon.
Post reply on HN