Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#2Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#3Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#4Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#5Can we please stop submitting fully AI-generated text to HN?
Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#6Can we please stop submitting fully AI-generated text to HN?
Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#7LLM-isms aside, I don't think we want this to be the case? An LLM, for all its complexity, is something that can be reasoned about. It's picking the next token, until it hits an EOS. The semantics imposed on those tokens (reasoning ,tool call, etc.) are up to the user('s harness) to decide and act on. The more that's pushed behind the facade, the harder it is achieve sufficient understanding of the model's behavior s.t. one can compose it into larger abstractions. Perhaps the performance (and the adherence to an interface/contract) compensate? But swapping from Opus or 5.5 to this or Fugu seems like a much bigger change than swapping between different 'base' models.
Re: Micro-Agent: Beat Frontier Models with Collaboration Inside Model API
#8> The phrase "frontier model" is starting to mean two things. One is a checkpoint. The other is a system boundary. LLM-isms aside, I don't think we want this to be the case? An LLM, for all its complexity, is something that can be reasoned about. It's picking the next token, until it hits an EOS. The semantics imposed on those tokens (reasoning ,tool call, etc.) are up to the user('s harness) to decide and act on. Th…