|
|
|
|
|
by lmeyerov
166 days ago
|
|
I find in coding + investigating there's a lot of mileage to being fancier on the todo list. Eg, we make sure timestamps, branches, outcomes, etc are represented. It's impressive how far they get with so little! For coding, I actually fully take over the todo list in codex + claude: https://github.com/graphistry/pygraphistry/blob/master/ai/pr... In Louie.ai, for investigations, we're experimenting with enabling more control of it, so you can go with the grain, vs that kind of wholecloth replacement |
|
And on a separate note - it looks like you're making a system for dealing with graph data at scale? Are you using LLMs primarily to generate code for new visualizations, or also to reason directly about each graph in question? To tie it all together, I've long been curious whether tools can adequately translate things from "graph space" to "language space" in the context of agentic loops. There seems to be tremendous opportunity in representing e.g. physical spaces as graphs, and if LLMs can "imagine" what would happen if they interacted with them in structured ways, that might go a long way towards autonomous systems that can handle truly novel environments.