Live data from Hacker News

Agents Are Not Enough

arxiv.org

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#51
post #49

Why post this paper? It says nothing, it's a waste of people's time to read.

Even just the definition of an Agent (maybe imperfect) made it worthwhile for me.

I'm not sure it's even good though... the input doesn't need to come from a user. I have an "agent" which listens for an event in financial markets and then goes and does some stuff.

In practice the current usage of "agent" is just: a program which does a task and uses an LLM somewhere to help make a decision as to what to do and maybe uses an LLM to help do it.

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#52
post #2

I 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…

> "LLM as UI" seems to be something hanging pretty low on the tree of opportunity.

Yes if you want to annoy your users and deliberately put roadblocks to make progress on a task. Exhibit A: customer support. They put the LLM in between to waste your time. It’s not even a secret.

> Why spent months struggling with complex admin dashboard layouts

You can throw something together, and even auto generate forms based on an API spec. People don’t do this too often because the UX is insufficient even for many internal/domain expert support applications. But you could and it would be deterministic, unlike an LLM. If the API surface is simple, you can make it manually with html & css quickly.

Overuse of web frameworks has completely different causes than ”I need a functional thing” and thus it cannot be solved with a different layer of tech like LLMs, NFTs or big data.

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#53
post #2

I 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…

> I 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

That's a funny definition to me, because doing so would mean the LLM is the agent, if you use the classic definition for "user-agent" (as in what browsers are). You're basically inverting that meaning :)

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#54
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is also the root of the word 'government', so a government agent is doubly cybernetic in a sense

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#56
post #2

I 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…

I had the same epiphany about LLM as UI trying to build a front end for a image enhancer workflow I built with Stable Diffusion. I just about fully built out a Chrome extension and then realized I should just build a 'tool' that llama can interact with and use open webui as the front end.

quick demo: https://youtu.be/2zvbvoRCmrE

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#57

"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

When reading anthropics blog on agents I basically took away that their advice is you shouldn't use them to solve most problems.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/building-effective-agents

"For many applications, however, optimizing single LLM calls with retrieval and in-context examples is usually enough."

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#58
post #4

This 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…

To me "Agents" sound like computer programs that interact through APIs?

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#59
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally.

If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated to a single task in their field like a lawyer or construction workers or doctors and brain surgeons, I see the current best path forward as being a "mixture of experts". We know LLM's are pretty good for what iv seen some refer to as NLP problems, where the model input is the tokenized string input. However I would argue an LLM will never built a trained model like stockfish or deepseek. Certain model types seem to be suited to certain issues/types of problems or inputs. True AGI or SI would stop trying to be a grand master of everything but rather know what best method/model should be applied to a given problem. We still do not know if it is possible to combine the knowledge of different types of neural networks like LLMs, convolutional neural networks, and deep learning...and while its certainly worth exploring, it is foolish to throw all hope on a single solution approach. I think the first step would be to create a new type of model where given a problem of any type. It knows the best method to solve it. And it doesn't rely on itself but rather the mixture of agents or experts. And they don't even have to be LLMs. They could be anything.

Where this really would explode is, if the AI was able to identify a problem that it can't solve and invent or come up with a new approach, multiple approaches, because we don't have to be the ones who develop every expert.

Re: Agents Are Not Enough

#60
post #4

This 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…

Oh come on! You and I know very well an AI Agent is anything marketing says they are, and that is the absolute final truth.
Post reply on HN