We don’t trust llm execution- so we add user approvals. But task decomposition calls for co-recursion between code and prompts. This means that the approvals should be evocable at any depth. I think we need some kind of protocol for that (à la the Cubes OS protocols for cut and paste between vms).
Maybe a workaround could be to use bubblewrap of the scripts ther recursively call the llm (and run the agent in yolo inside the wrap).
I have been struggling with that. Thanks!
Let me reword it - natural language lacks a strict semantics - so also programs for the llm machine ( I.e. prompts) cannot have it.
LLMs always have to project from all possible semantics into one (are there any experiments with superpositions?)
What is the root cause of this? It is said that AMD is hardware company and neglects software - but recently they issued lots of declarations of becoming software firs now.
Property is a local low - it applies to a thing that exists in one place. Intellectual property is trying to apply similar rules to stuff that happen remotely - a text is not a thing, and controlling copying might work in some technological regimes while in others would require totalitarian control. When you extend these rules to cover not just copying of texts but also at the level of ideas it gets even worse.
There is something not right with expecting that artificial intelligence will have the same characteristics as human intelligence. (I am answering to the quote)
Just to be precise. The sepsis alarm was not blocking x-ray or antibiotics but rather suggesting them.
“””
Agyare had instructed Banerjee to hydrate Sam right away but to wait for the results of Sam’s lab work before ordering a chest X-ray or the strong antibiotics used to treat sepsis.
“””