11–20 of 268 posts
[stub for offtopicness]
Let's get a timer to watch this fall off the front page of HN in minutes. "We can't allow this post to create FUD about the current hype on AI agents and we need the scam to continue as long as possible".
I'd imagine future agents will include training to design these checks into any output, validating against the checks before proceeding further. They may even include some minor risk assessment beforehand, such as "this aspect is crucial and needs to be 99% correct before proceeding further".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously AI generated, if that matters. And I have an AI workflow that generates much better posts than this.
I think it's just written by someone who reads a lot of LLM output - lots of lists with bolded prefixes. Maybe there was some AI-assistance (or a lot), but I didn't get the impression that it was AI-generated as a whole.
I read and generate hundreds of posts every month. I have to read books on writing to keep myself sane and not sound like an AI.
Human multi-step workflows tend to have checkpoints where the work is validated before proceeding further, as humans generally aren't 99%+ accurate either. I'd imagine future agents will include training to design these checks into any output, validating against the checks before proceeding further. They may even include some minor risk assessment beforehand, such as "this aspect is crucial and needs to be 99% correc…
> Each new interaction requires processing ALL previous context I was under the impression that some kind of caching mechanism existed to mitigate this
Caching would only help to keep the context around, but caching would only be needed if it still ultimately needs to read and process that cached context again.
They don't go into implementation details but Gemini docs say you get a 75% discount if there's a context-cache hit: https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/docs/contex...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's just written by someone who reads a lot of LLM output - lots of lists with bolded prefixes. Maybe there was some AI-assistance (or a lot), but I didn't get the impression that it was AI-generated as a whole.
"Hard truth" and "reality check" in the same post is dead giveaway. I read and generate hundreds of posts every month. I have to read books on writing to keep myself sane and not sound like an AI.
> Production systems need 99.9%+ reliability This is not remotely true. Think of any business process around your company. 99.9% availability would mean only 1min26 per day allowed for instability/errors/downtime. Surely your human collaborators aren't hitting this SLA. A single coffee break immediately breaks this (per collaborator!). Business Process Automation via AI doesn't need to be perfect. It simply needs to…
Human multi-step workflows tend to have checkpoints where the work is validated before proceeding further, as humans generally aren't 99%+ accurate either. I'd imagine future agents will include training to design these checks into any output, validating against the checks before proceeding further. They may even include some minor risk assessment beforehand, such as "this aspect is crucial and needs to be 99% correc…
That's what Claude Code does - it constantly stops and asks you whether you want to proceed, including showing you the suggested changes before they're implemented. Helps with avoiding token waste and 'bad' work.
on a personal note, I'm happy to hear that. I've been apprehensive and haven't tried it, purely due to my fear of the cost.