7 ms·
get a second agent to validate the return from the first agent. but it might get it wrong because reasons, so you need a third agent just to make sure. and then
by dworks 1y ago
get a second agent to validate the return from the first agent. but it might get it wrong because reasons, so you need a third agent just to make sure. and then a fourth. and so on. this is obviously not a working direction.
- simonw 1y agoThat's why you give them the ability to actually execute the code in a sandbox. Then it's not AI checking AI, you're mixing something deterministic into the loop.
- dworks 1y agothe return may still not reflect the sandbox reality.
- kmoser 1y agoThat may certainly increase the agent's ability to get it right, but there will always be cases where the code it generates mimics the correct response, i.e. produces the output asked for, without actually working as intended, as LLMs tend to want to please as much as be correct.
- simonw 1y agoNot much harm done. The end user sees the response and either spots that it's broken or finds out it's broken when they try to run it. They take a screenshot and make fun of the rubbish bot on social media. If that happens rarely it's still a worthwhile improvement over today. If it happens frequently then the documentation bot is junk and should be retired.
- dworks 1y agoyoure hand wavibng all the other million use cases where returning false information isnt OK.
- gampleman 1y agoHowever I think it would remove the case of the bit outright making up non-existent stuff. It could still always be just plain wrong, but in a more human sort of way. A real support person may be wrong about some precise detail of what they’re recommending, but unlikely to just make up something plausible.