cortesoft
I hope the future of AI isn't this sort, where companies
provide the user/customer with an interface to an AI that
can do things for the user... I would much prefer that
companies instead provide an interface FOR an AI, and the
user brings their own AI which connects to that
interface.In other words, provide my AI with tools,
instead of providing me an AI that uses your tools.That
way, my AI can bring all the context it needs, and I can
bring all of the settings and knowledge about what I want
with me. I don't want a fractured world of tons of AIs i
interact with where I have to explain all the fundamental
information about what I want and how I work every
time.This also has the benefit of sidestepping the issue
the essay is talking about. You provide a consistent tool,
and the AI weirdness is not your issue anymore. You don't
have to worry about solving for all the weird ways people
prompt the AI, or the ways they break.
|
> kennywinker
I don't think that will happen. It sounds good, and I
would like it if things operated that way - but from
the company perspective how do they, for example, have
a tool call that gives the customer a discount,
without it getting used when it shouldn't?Companies
want ai to replace human customer service decision
making, which means it can't just be an api that an
external agent can interact with, because it needs
private knowledge of company processes and access to
capabilities that are abusable.But we're already at
the point where if you manage to talk to a human,
mostly you end up speaking to someone with no actual
power to resolve your issue - so i think basically the
future is just going to suck
|
> > visarga
They can want anything they like, if customers
want to use agents and they don't provide APIs
they will lose out.
|
> krapp
Companies will do whatever creates the most lock-in
for the user and generates the most profit for
themselves.Ask yourself what's in their best interest
as a business? That's probably what they'll do.
|
vouwfietsman
No idea how effective this is, but it sure looks a lot
more like engineering than most of the 'prompt
engineering' things I've seen in the past years. Kudos to
the author for writing this concisely without aggrandizing
his work.
|
visarga
> the textual nature of prompts leads us to take the
intentional stance towards systems which aren't conscious,
and thus miss the essential nature of their non-meaningI
see LLMs as being capable of making useful distinctions
and having a rich action space. They are widely used
because their operation is useful, and that can only
happen when semantics work well in practice. But useful
things that pay for themselves don't need our "essential
nature" blessing, they already have persistence by mutual
entanglement with us.
|
jdlshore
This is an amazing article. The problems it describes are
exactly what we found when building a production system
that used LLMs to (most of the time) produce reliable
results. Extensive tests are necessary, and stakeholders
have no idea how their suggestions fail in production.
They just see the handful of times they tried something
and had it work, not the long tail of cursed results.
("How hard can it be? Why don't you just...")We didn't get
to the point of self-built prompts, as the article
suggests, but it's an intriguing idea.
|
xhxjxchjcdhcxf
i am not reading this. it's already a terrible format to
begin with and the writer of course is the typically sort
that thinks anyone cares for his insipid humor and his
bio. this article is trash regardless of the shreds of
actual content might be.
|
> pell
From the HN guidelines:> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out
swipes.>Comments should get more thoughtful and
substantive, not less, as a topic gets more
divisive.>When disagreeing, please reply to the
argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1
+ 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not
3.">Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is
fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically
negative.
|
Joker_vD
TL;DR: you need to do... essentially supervised learning
on your prompts? I mean, if I wanted to do ML, I'd already
have been doing it ten years ago.
|
esafak
Crafting a good prompt is what differentiates an expert's
output from a beginner's. Of course you need good
constraints too. But those good constraints are created
precisely through good prompts.
|