[godelski]

I'm not quite sure I agree, but I do get your point. Why I don't quite agree is that the agents are communicating and thus the "in the weeds" part is getting into how that communication is being processed. Which is what makes or breaks agents. How they interpret one another and respond. There needs to be some mech interp for me to really think of something as low-level. I'll put emphasis on the in the weeds part. Nuance and details are critical parts to a low-level conversation.

  > You can say that about anything.

That is true. But it is also true that you can approach any topic from low-level or high-level. So I'm not sure I get your point here.

[windsignaling]

What I meant was, the phrase "inner workings of the processing" doesn't really mean anything at all. i.e. it doesn't convey any useful information about what you're trying to say.

> How they interpret one another and respond.

That sounds like it just falls back to "how LLMs work". It's the wrong level of abstraction in this case, because it's one level down from the topic being discussed here.

[godelski]

Certainly it means something. Alone it says little but in both previous comments there are other words to provide context and even explicitly communicate that I mean you need to be looking at the tokens and token passing. How the LLMs communicate. The low-level details in how that communication operates.

  > because it's one level down

So we're in agreement?

Aren't we after the "low-level"? That's this whole conversation... yes, it is a level down, that's my whole point. Just as my original analogy with assembly being a level down from C. Working at the metal, as they say. In the weeds.

I honestly don't know how to respond because I'm saying "this is too high-level" and you're arguing "you're too low-level". I'm sorry, but when you do stuff at the low-level you in fact have to crouch down and put your face to the ground. The lower the better. You're trying to see something very small, we're not trying to observe mountains here