|
|
|
|
|
by RealityVoid
26 days ago
|
|
I am a bit confused which part you disagree with specifically. Reading AI responses and reviewing code seems to be what you propose as well. Your example with MLIP is something that would not be prevented by this approach, during the planing phase, it would surface. I guess the devil is in the details and the way you prompt it for starting the task matters. But IMO you absolutely need to check the output, need to engage with what the model is doing, need to probe why something is built the way the model tries to build it. |
|
Micro-managing and keeping the AI on a "short leash" also lends itself better to telling models to do smaller units of work at a time instead of discussing broader design concerns. That is why I think someone doing this would miss the MILP solution, because they might never discuss the overall design with the model but rather just tell it what to implement next.