Here's a link to arxiv page for the paper,
in case you want to look over the abstract and citation metadata before downloading the PDF.
Agents Are Not Enough
31–40 of 165 posts
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#32I think the goldilocks path is to make the user the agent and use the LLM simply as their UI/UX for working with the system. Human (domain expert) in the loop gives you a reasonable chance of recovering from hallucinations before they spiral entirely out of control. "LLM as UI" seems to be something hanging pretty low on the tree of opportunity. Why spent months struggling with complex admin dashboard layouts and web…
It's quite tedious to have to write (or even say) full sentences to express intent. Imagine driving a car with a voice interface, including accelerator, brake, indicators and so on. Controls are less verbose and dashboards are more information rich than linear text.
It's difficult to be precise. Often it's easier to gauge things by looking at them while giving motor feedback (e.g. turning a dial, pushing a slider) than to say "a little more X" or "a bit less Y".
Language is poorly suited to expressing things in continuous domains, especially when you don't have relevant numbers that you can pick out of your head - size, weight, color etc. Quality-price ratio is a particularly tough one - a hard numeric quantity traded off against something subjective.
Most people can't specify up front what they want. They don't know what they want until they know what's possible, what other people have done, started to realize what getting what they want will entail, and then changed what they want. It's why we have iterative development instead of waterfall.
LLMs are a good start and a tool we can integrate into systems. They're a long, long way short of what we need.
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#33"More Agents is all you need" https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05120 I could not find a "Agents considered harmful" related to AI, but there is this one: "AgentHarm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of LLM agents" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.09024 This "Agents considered harmful" is not AI-related: https://www.scribd.com/document/361564026/Math-works-09
Morpheus taught me they are quite harmful.
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#34I don't get the hype about Agents.
It's just calling a LLM n-times with slightly different prompts
Sure, you get the ability to correct previous mistakes, it's basically a custom chain of thought - but errors compound and the results coming from agents have a pretty low success rate.
Bruteforcing your way out of problems can work sometimes (as evinced by the latest o3 benchmarks) but it's expensive and rarely viable for production use.
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#35This paper does at least lead with its version of what "agents" means (I get very frustrated when people talk about agents without clarifying which of the many potential definitions they are using): > An agent, in the context of AI, is an autonomous entity or program that takes preferences, instructions, or other forms of inputs from a user to accomplish specific tasks on their behalf. Agents can range from simple sy…
agents are the 2020s version of data science in the 2010s
[deleted]
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#36This paper does at least lead with its version of what "agents" means (I get very frustrated when people talk about agents without clarifying which of the many potential definitions they are using): > An agent, in the context of AI, is an autonomous entity or program that takes preferences, instructions, or other forms of inputs from a user to accomplish specific tasks on their behalf. Agents can range from simple sy…
agents are the 2020s version of data science in the 2010s
Do you mean that agents are being hyped in the same way data science was in the 2010s, or that they’ll have a similar impact over time? Would love to hear more of your thoughts.
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
agents are the 2020s version of data science in the 2010s
Do you mean that agents are being hyped in the same way data science was in the 2010s, or that they’ll have a similar impact over time? Would love to hear more of your thoughts.
I think he meant it's a similarly blurry term
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#38The paper covers technical details and the logistics of AI Agents to come. But how are humans going to react to mass AI Agents replacing other human emotion and connection? Bias is central in tech-culture to only agents, but this could become an issue.
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#39This paper does at least lead with its version of what "agents" means (I get very frustrated when people talk about agents without clarifying which of the many potential definitions they are using): > An agent, in the context of AI, is an autonomous entity or program that takes preferences, instructions, or other forms of inputs from a user to accomplish specific tasks on their behalf. Agents can range from simple sy…
So basically just the concept of feedback in a cybernetic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
> The field is named after an example of circular causal feedback—that of steering a ship (the ancient Greek κυβερνήτης (kybernḗtēs)...
Now that name makes a lot more sense to me.
Re: Agents Are Not Enough
#40Agent is a funding and marketing term imho Soon it will be AI Microservices
Who wants to invest in my startup, its a Microagent service architectures orchestration platform. All you do is define the inputs, write the agents algorithms, apply agency by inputting a decision tree (ifs and conditionals) and then a function to format output! And the best part? You do all of it in YAML!
/sarcasm, hopefully obviously