Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LeoS1 27 days ago
There are some great ideas in this post, namely the focus on human attention as the limited resource and the recursive decomposition of tasks. There were also a few points which I found unclear. You describe recursive decomposition as a "tree of DAGs ...". What do you mean by this? Is each node in the tree a DAG? Secondly, I agree that the tree is exponentially faster than one agent scanning a flat list, but are you not running exponentially more "scanning" agents? If human attention is the only limiting factor this is fine, but is this not a problem if you have limited compute?
1 comments

Running more scanning agents exponentially is an interesting proposition as we scale to massive, continuously growing tasks. In my initial experimentations with well-defined tasks, the overhead has not been worth diving into yet, since latency has been low enough.

It would turn a slow search into a highly parallelised "MapReduce" problem. You trade a brief, massive burst of machine execution to keep wall-clock latency incredibly low for the human waiting at the top.

A tree structure means these scanning agents don’t just run wild. High-level nodes could aggressively prune entire branches the moment a scanning agent reports a dead end.