Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Jido 2.0, Elixir Agent Framework

jido.run

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Show HN: Jido 2.0, Elixir Agent Framework

#61

Legit question, am I missing anything not playing with agents? Like, what's the killer-app feature vs chatgpt prompt?

Its an order of magnitude difference in what it can do, mostly because it can verify its own work. It can also use subagents which helps a lot. Large tasks I usually have done by subs with the main agent directing. This means the task they can take on can be much larger.

Re: Show HN: Jido 2.0, Elixir Agent Framework

#64
The point mikehostetler makes – 'agents must be architecturally correct WITHOUT LLMs before they can be correct WITH LLMs' – is underappreciated in most production deployments. We see this constantly: the failure mode isn't model quality, it's undefined operational boundaries and missing human-in-the-loop checkpoints for edge cases. Supervision trees as a first-class design primitive rather than an afterthought seems exactly right. What's your experience with teams that skip the architectural correctness step and go straight to LLM integration?

Re: Show HN: Jido 2.0, Elixir Agent Framework

#66
post #64

The point mikehostetler makes – 'agents must be architecturally correct WITHOUT LLMs before they can be correct WITH LLMs' – is underappreciated in most production deployments. We see this constantly: the failure mode isn't model quality, it's undefined operational boundaries and missing human-in-the-loop checkpoints for edge cases. Supervision trees as a first-class design primitive rather than an afterthought seems…

I don't have a good answer - I've seen a lot of agent deployments but the space is evolving quickly and it's difficult to meaningfully discuss patterns.

This will be solved - and I hope that Jido can be a meaningful participant in that wider conversation.

Re: Show HN: Jido 2.0, Elixir Agent Framework

#68
post #59

cool Although... the agent orchestration is really the easy part. It is just a loop. You can solve this in many different ways and yes some languages are more suitable for this than others. But still - very straightforward. The hard part is making sure these agents can do useful things which requires connecting them to tools. Although just adding bash might seem like checking that box the reality is more complex when…

Not sure if this will surprise you - but I 100% agree with this. I went through the journey that many others did - implementing the loop, then trying to make it useful, realizing the limitations, etc.

I came to similar conclusions - what does valuable agentic software look like? It's not OpenClaw (yet)

The game theory then, in my opinion, is to focus on the knowable frontier - implement tools we can trust - and continue working and sharing that work.

I am holding onto the optimistic case - valuable use cases beyond coding agents will emerge.

Post reply on HN