←back to thread

What to build instead of AI agents

(decodingml.substack.com)
233 points giuliomagnifico | 2 comments | 03 Jul 25 00:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.485s | source
Show context
ldjkfkdsjnv ◴[03 Jul 25 00:49 UTC] No.44450452[source]▶
This is all going to be solved by better models. Building agents is building for a world that doesn't quite exist yet, but probably will in a year or two. Building some big heuristic engine that strings together LLM calls (which is what this blog advocates for) is essentially a bet against progress in ai. I'm not taking that bet, and neither are any of the major players.
replies(7): >>44450462 #>>44450475 #>>44450503 #>>44450507 #>>44450563 #>>44450783 #>>44452156 #
candiddevmike ◴[03 Jul 25 00:51 UTC] No.44450462[source]▶
There are perverse incentives against admitting that the AI boom music is probably stopping and grabbing a chair, better to keep stringing along investors with more AGI thought leadership.
replies(1): >>44450491 #
tptacek ◴[03 Jul 25 00:54 UTC] No.44450491[source]▶
This comment has nothing to do with either the comment it replies to or the original post, neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with "AGI thought leadership".
replies(1): >>44451083 #
1. bGl2YW5j ◴[03 Jul 25 02:33 UTC] No.44451083[source]▶
There's an implication in the messaging of most of these blogs that LLMs and the approach the blog describes, is verging on AGI.
replies(1): >>44451159 #
2. tptacek ◴[03 Jul 25 02:48 UTC] No.44451159[source]▶
No, there isn't. People talk about AGI, including the CEOs of frontier model companies, but this isn't a post about that; it's very specifically a post about the workaday applications of LLMs as they exist today. (I don't think AGI will ever exist and don't care about it either way.)