[whinvik]

I feel like this is how normal work is. When I have to figure out how to use a new app/api etc, I go through an initial period where I am just clicking around, shouting in the ether etc until I get the hang of it.

And then the third or fourth time its automatic. Its weird but sometimes I feel like the best way to make agents work is to metathink about how I myself work.

[suchintan]

I have a 2yo and it's been surreal watching her learn the world. It deeply resembles how LLMs learn and think. Crazy

[Retric]

Odd, I've been stuck by how different LLMs and kids learn the world.

You don’t get that whole uncanny valley disconnect do you?

[goatlover]

How so? Your kid has a body that interacts with the physical world. An LLM is trained on terabytes of text, then modified by human feedback and rules to be a useful chatbot for all sorts of tasks. I don't see the similarity.

[crazygringo]

If you watch how agents attempt a task, fail, try to figure out what went wrong, try again, repeat a couple more times, then finally succeed -- you don't see the similarity?

[dingnuts]

no I see something resembling gradient descent which is fine but it's hardly a child

[haskellshill]

> try to figure out what went wrong

LLMs don't do this. They can't think. If you just one for like five minutes it's obvious that just because the text on the screen says "Sorry, I made I mistake, there are actually 5 r's in strawberry", doesn't mean there's any thought behind it.

[crazygringo]

I mean, you can literally watch their thought process. They try to figure out reasons why something went wrong, and then identify solutions. Often in ways that require real deduction and creativity. And have quite a high success rate.

If that's not thinking, then I don't know what is.

[haskellshill]

You're arguing in circles. They don't "try to figure out reasons" because there is no concept of "trying", "figuring out" or "reasons".

> If that's not thinking, then I don't know what is.

How about actual thinking, you know, what humans and to a lesser extent animals do?

[balder1991]

No, because an agent doesn’t learn, it’s just continuing a story. A kid will learn from the experience and at the end will be a different person.

[CaptainOfCoit]

You just haven't added the right tool together with the right system/developer prompt. Add a `add_memory` and `list_memory` (or automatically inject the right memories for the right prompts/LLM responses) and you have something that can learn.

You can also take it a step further and add automatic fine-tuning once you start gathering a ton of data, which will rewire the model somewhat.

[haskellshill]

Perhaps it can improve but it can't learn because that requires thought. Would you say that a PID regulator can "learn"?

[deadbabe]

A person is not their body.

The person is the data that they have ingested and trained on through the senses that are exposed by their body. Body is just an interface to reality.

[haskellshill]

That is a very weird and fringe definition of what a person is.

[deadbabe]

If you have a different life experience than what you had so far, wouldn’t you be a different person?

[haskellshill]

If you had one fewer leg, wouldn't you be a different person? Implication is not equivalence.

[haskellshill]

> It deeply resembles how LLMs learn and think

What? LLMs don't think nor learn in the sense humans do. They have absolutely no resemblance to a human being. This must be the most ridiculous statement I've read this year

[melagonster]

I am sorry, but you are scoffing at the humanity of your kid; you know that, right?