Why LLMs still lack taste
beyondtheprior.com
Why LLMs still lack taste
1–6 of 6 posts
Re: Why LLMs still lack taste
#2Whose taste...
Re: Why LLMs still lack taste
#3Whose taste...
I think good taste is objective to an extent, especially given a particular production context.
Re: Why LLMs still lack taste
#4“allow it to change its own harness for better context management, etc”
It gets a little too hand-wavey there. If it were that simple, wouldn’t coding agents be doing this already? In my experience the memories CC creates for itself are like any other LLM writing: overly verbose and full of irrelevant details, often missing the point of the feedback that caused it to create the memory in the first place. LLMs are really bad at knowing how to prompt LLMs, and that makes perfect sense for because they’re incapable of introspection.
Re: Why LLMs still lack taste
#5i dont think there is any LLM which is perfect...everyone is trained on different data....so its obviuos everyone don't like it....
Re: Why LLMs still lack taste
#6“allow it to change its own harness for better context management, etc” It gets a little too hand-wavey there. If it were that simple, wouldn’t coding agents be doing this already? In my experience the memories CC creates for itself are like any other LLM writing: overly verbose and full of irrelevant details, often missing the point of the feedback that caused it to create the memory in the first place. LLMs are rea…
I agree that current memory systems are pretty bad, and I think that’s because memory is a prompted behavior instead of a learned one. In theory, if memory was an emergent behavior instead of a prompted one, it would be a lot better.
I think you’re right that changing its own harness would be bad and skew towards prompt engineering instead of learned behavior. So maybe instead it could start with a harness with memory CRUD tools and then learn how to most effectively use them.