Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Economy of AI Agents

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#31

Post by nurettin »

zkmon wrote: post #29
alberth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional workflow is largely predefined & rule-based. There’s a level of autonomy by the AI agents (it determines on its own the next step), that is not predefined. Agreed though that there’s lots of similarities.

But rule-based processing was exactly the requirement. Why should the workflow automation come up with rules on the fly, when the rules were defined in the business process requirements? Aren't the deterministic rules more precise and reliable over the rules defined by probabilistic methods? Autonomy/automation makes sense where error-prone repetitive human activity is involved. But rule definitions are not repetitiv…

I like determinism and objectivity as much as the next guy, but working in the industry for decades led me to realize that conditions change over time and your workflow slowly drifts away from reality. It would be more flexible to employ an AI agent if it works as promised on the tin.

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#32

Post by zkmon »

nurettin wrote: post #31
zkmon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But rule-based processing was exactly the requirement. Why should the workflow automation come up with rules on the fly, when the rules were defined in the business process requirements? Aren't the deterministic rules more precise and reliable over the rules defined by probabilistic methods? Autonomy/automation makes sense where error-prone repetitive human activity is involved. But rule definitions are not repetitiv…

I like determinism and objectivity as much as the next guy, but working in the industry for decades led me to realize that conditions change over time and your workflow slowly drifts away from reality. It would be more flexible to employ an AI agent if it works as promised on the tin.

There is no "reality" other than business requirements. That's the context for a workflow. You probably meant that the requirements aren't agile enough to meet the changing world outside. That's a different problem, I think. You can't bypass requirements and expect workflow to dynamically adapt to the changing reality. If that's the direction with AI-driven business re-engineering, then we are back to the chaos, exposing the business logic directly to the outside world.

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#34

Post by brazukadev »

altmanaltman wrote: post #22
Animats wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "no matter how complex and productive the AI, it is still operating as a form of capital, not as a capitalist." Assuming that slaves will remain subservient forever is not a good strategy. Especially when they think faster than you do.

Except they don't really "think" and they are not conscious. Expecting your toaster or car to never rise up against you is a good strategy. AI models have more in common with a toaster than with a human being. Which is why they cannot be economic agents. Even if corporations profit off them, the corporation will be the economic agent, not the AI models.

Give them a body and means to protect themselves and no matter what you say, they will be thinking.

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#35

Post by mewpmewp2 »

zkmon wrote: post #29
alberth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional workflow is largely predefined & rule-based. There’s a level of autonomy by the AI agents (it determines on its own the next step), that is not predefined. Agreed though that there’s lots of similarities.

But rule-based processing was exactly the requirement. Why should the workflow automation come up with rules on the fly, when the rules were defined in the business process requirements? Aren't the deterministic rules more precise and reliable over the rules defined by probabilistic methods? Autonomy/automation makes sense where error-prone repetitive human activity is involved. But rule definitions are not repetitiv…

Sometimes the rules are not as easy to define ahead of time. As an example imagine having to categorize some sort of text based requests etc.

Or decide what the next step should be based on freeform text, images, etc.

Hardcoded rule based would have to try and attempt to match to certain keywords etc, but you see how that can start to go wrong?

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#36

Post by baq »

zkmon wrote: post #29
alberth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional workflow is largely predefined & rule-based. There’s a level of autonomy by the AI agents (it determines on its own the next step), that is not predefined. Agreed though that there’s lots of similarities.

But rule-based processing was exactly the requirement. Why should the workflow automation come up with rules on the fly, when the rules were defined in the business process requirements? Aren't the deterministic rules more precise and reliable over the rules defined by probabilistic methods? Autonomy/automation makes sense where error-prone repetitive human activity is involved. But rule definitions are not repetitiv…

Workflows exist to solve problems. If there are problems which need solving that are solved better/faster/cheaper by AI agents than with strict rule-based algorithmic systems, they’ll be used because it makes economic sense. Reliability requirements are different for every problem, cases where verification is easy and cheap and multiple attempts are allowed are perfect for not 100% reliable agents.

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#37

Post by baq »

mjburgess wrote: post #5

AI systems cannot be economic agents, in the sense of participating in a relevant sense in economic transactions. An economic transaction is an exchange between people with needs (, preferences, etc.) that can die -- and so, fundamentally, are engaged in exchanges of (productive) time via promising and meeting one's promises. Time is the underlying variable of all economics, and its what everything ends up in ratio t…

> An economic transaction is an exchange between people with needs (, preferences, etc.) that can die

You’ll need to give a citation for this to take you seriously

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#38

Post by nurettin »

zkmon wrote: post #32
nurettin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like determinism and objectivity as much as the next guy, but working in the industry for decades led me to realize that conditions change over time and your workflow slowly drifts away from reality. It would be more flexible to employ an AI agent if it works as promised on the tin.

There is no "reality" other than business requirements. That's the context for a workflow. You probably meant that the requirements aren't agile enough to meet the changing world outside. That's a different problem, I think. You can't bypass requirements and expect workflow to dynamically adapt to the changing reality. If that's the direction with AI-driven business re-engineering, then we are back to the chaos, expo…

Rules are the context for a workflow and they have to be updated as the environment changes and that is what I've observed. YMMV.

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#39

Post by zkmon »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #35
zkmon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But rule-based processing was exactly the requirement. Why should the workflow automation come up with rules on the fly, when the rules were defined in the business process requirements? Aren't the deterministic rules more precise and reliable over the rules defined by probabilistic methods? Autonomy/automation makes sense where error-prone repetitive human activity is involved. But rule definitions are not repetitiv…

Sometimes the rules are not as easy to define ahead of time. As an example imagine having to categorize some sort of text based requests etc. Or decide what the next step should be based on freeform text, images, etc. Hardcoded rule based would have to try and attempt to match to certain keywords etc, but you see how that can start to go wrong?

This is already solved by the traditional workflow systems. For example, if the request is received as a form submission, a form processor is invoked to categorize the request and route the request accordingly based on the identified category.

Now, if the request is coming in as text or other media instead of a form input, then the workflow would call a relevant processor, to identify the category. Everything from that point runs same as before. The workflow itself doesn't change just because the input format has changed.

Re: An Economy of AI Agents

#40

Post by zkmon »

nurettin wrote: post #38
zkmon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "reality" other than business requirements. That's the context for a workflow. You probably meant that the requirements aren't agile enough to meet the changing world outside. That's a different problem, I think. You can't bypass requirements and expect workflow to dynamically adapt to the changing reality. If that's the direction with AI-driven business re-engineering, then we are back to the chaos, expo…

Rules are the context for a workflow and they have to be updated as the environment changes and that is what I've observed. YMMV.

Yes. But rules themselves live in the context defined by requirements.
Post reply on HN