[ocean_moist]

Maybe I just don’t understand the article but I really have 0 clue how they go about making their conclusions and really don’t understand what they are saying.

I think the 5 issues they provide under “Cognitive Architectures” are severely underspecified to the point where they really don’t _mean_ anything. Because the issues are so underspeficifed I don’t know how their proposed solution solves their proposed problems. If I understand it correctly, they just want agents (Assistants/Agents) with user profiles (Sims) on an app store? I’m pretty sure this already exists on the ChatGPT store. (sims==memories/user profiles, agents==tools/plugins, assistants==chat interface)

This whole thing is so broad and full of academic (pejorative) platitudes that it’s practically meaningless to me. And of course although completely unrelated they through a reference into symbolic systems. Academic theater.

[spiderfarmer]

This is publishing for the sake of publishing.

[sambo546]

The general negativity toward agents makes it read like the problem section of a research proposal ("X isn't good enough, we're going to develop solution Y").

[spiderfarmer]

That’s exactly what I thought.

[antisthenes]

It's a 4-page paper trying to give a summary of 40+ years of research on AI.

Of course it's going to be vague and presumptuous. It's more of a high-level executive summary for tech-adjacent folks than an actual research paper.