> trying to reduce the social damage they are going to do.
I'm worried about that in particular because when I started using AI I often felt I wanted to say something nice to it, like just "thanks" after I got someting working with its help. But then I started thinking I'm crazy, that's a waste of typing, what does it matter if I tell AI "thanks" or not.
So I don't thank AI any more, do you?
But that means we get used to this style of conversation and soon enough we don't tell humans thanks either. We dont' put in the energy to lubricate our social interactions. I'm worried that interacting with AI will make us all rude.
THere is something to it I assume. Less is someties more/ COnstraints make it interesting, and challenging.
There is a modern-day similar thing. In MSN news-site the main news-article automatically steps though a loop. You can manually interfere, but the constraint is that you basically can see the news article only for a short time before it is replaced by another. I guess you could call it gamification as well. Thinks about Dunegeons and Dragons where you find news-articles in the dungeon and dragons are trying to burn them with their fiery blaze.
So I guess we should ask the agent to write such a script, UNLESS there already exists such a script and we have used it before so we know it worked at least in the past.
Else if the agent creates a new script evry time the non-determinism rears its ugly head again.
But that means we need to know that the existing script is exactly what we want. And that means we need to understand the code, or at least the tested spec of the code, that AI writes for us. AI can't replace humans, humans must remain in control and understand what the code writent by AI exactly does.
So part of it seems to be working together: I link to your site with the expectation that you link back to mine. Not a bad idea, also letting the site-creators coordinate who focuses on which sub-topic. But are there many examples of this in the real web?
I think Agents need user-accounts on your machine, and for us an easy way to configure the permissions each agent has, and then we dont' have to worry about sandboxing so much. This approach was pioneered by smart-phone OSes like Android.
Once permissions are safe and secure and easy to set up and understand then using shell-programming as a general interface between agents and your PC/OS might be a good option.
Come to think of it I recently read that Microsoft is planning to produce an AI-oriented OS. Maybe agents with user-accounts is something they are aiming for, to solve the problem discussed in the article.
Not sure I get it. Why a "ring"? Why not just have a list of web-site URLs on a page and share that page with your friends and ask them to put that page somewhere on their site?
"Ring" means you are navigating linearly and circularly. Isn't it better to provide a list of links so users can choose where they want to go "next"?
And why should I have to go around the whole "ring" to get back to where I started from? The Web is based on hyperlinks, not "hyper-rings".
LLM can write programs in any programming language it knows about. So how about askinng it to write a shell-program that does the tool-calls on the client?
You might want to run in some kind of sandbox to prevent the LLM from taking over the world, security is an isssue. But apart from that why not make the LLM write shell-programs instead of relying on JSON etc. ? Shell-scripting is the language for controlling the OS.
My favorite metaphor for programming is playing chess. Your opponent in programming is the complexity, you don't see its moves before the coding and design progress, before you make your choices/moves. You solve a problem by writing some code but that causes new problems down the line you didn't know existed before you made your choice of writing some specific code. or choosing a specific design.
Chess-players too are in a very "meditative" state when they play, and they enjoy it, I assume because it let's them focus on the game and forget about everything else.
Maybe something like: When you do derivation you analyze how the function behaves at a given point. Whenever you analyze something you analyze a given thing, not all things. When you do integration you look at a function and then produce something that describes the function on every point. You come up with a closed integral-formula for the shole function. You need to synthesize something that describes the function everywhere. But when you derivate the dericate, you also produce a closed function that describes the function everywhere. Oops, I think I got lost here too.
It's also about poor children getting worse primary education . According to Google "roughly 21% of U.S. adults are functionally illiterate".
If you never learned to read, good luck getting higher education.
I'm not defending communist societies like Soviet Union or China but I think "social democratic" countries like those in Scandinavia have shown generally good education outcomes.
What can you gain by looking at the weights, whether open source or not? Are they not what determines the model's output, but in an oblique way? We can't really fix the weights ourselves, weight by weight, or can we?
I think what is going to happen is revival of "Methodology".
"Methodology" was a big thing in the past just before we got into "Agile Extreme Coding", instead of trying to model the big picture of SW development projects just jump into coding agilly. Implement it feature-by-feature
Granted the methdologies proposed ( See: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/rational-soft-arch/9.7.0?topic=m... ) may have been too heavy and not flexible and not improved enough. But now with the rise of Agents I think we need to revise and perhaps re-invent them for AI agentic development.