|
|
|
|
|
|
by kasey_junk
355 days ago
|
|
|
I use llms for each of those steps and modeling agent workflows following them has been very successful for me. I think I’ve become disgruntled with the anti-llm crowd because every objection seems to boil down to “you are doing software engineering wrong” or “you have just described a workflow that is worse than the default”. Stop for a minute and start from a different premise. There are people out there who know how to deliver software well, have been doing it for decades and find this tooling immensely productivity enhancing. Presume they know as much as you about the industry and have been just as successful doing it. This person took the time to very specifically outline their workflow and steps in a clear and repeatable way. Rather than trying it and giving feedback in the same specific way you just said they have no idea what they are doing. Try imagining that they do and it’s you who are not getting the message and see if you get your a different place. |
|
|
Workflows are personal and the only one who can judge them are the one who is paying for the work. At most, we can compare them in order to improve our own personal workflow.
My feedback is maybe not clear enough. But here are the main points:
- Too complicated in regards to the example provided, with the actual benefits for the complication not explained.
- Not a great methodology because the answer to the queries are tainted by the query. Like testing for alcohol by putting the liquid in a bottle of vodka. When I search for something that is not there, I expect "no results" or an error message. Not a mirage.
- The process of getting information, making decisions, and then acting is corrupted by putting it only at some irrelevant moments: Before even knowing anything; When presented with a restricted list of options with no understanding of the factors that play in the restriction; and after the work is done.