I hope the future of AI isn't this sort, where companies provide the user/customer with an interface to an AI that can do things for the user... I would much prefer that companies instead provide an interface FOR an AI, and the user brings their own AI which connects to that interface.
In other words, provide my AI with tools, instead of providing me an AI that uses your tools.
That way, my AI can bring all the context it needs, and I can bring all of the settings and knowledge about what I want with me. I don't want a fractured world of tons of AIs i interact with where I have to explain all the fundamental information about what I want and how I work every time.
This also has the benefit of sidestepping the issue the essay is talking about. You provide a consistent tool, and the AI weirdness is not your issue anymore. You don't have to worry about solving for all the weird ways people prompt the AI, or the ways they break.
There's no interop between video conferences services, no BYO-video-conferencing app, why would this be any different? It took government regulation to allow telephones other than those provided by the phone company to be plugged into the phone network. Can't control you or usage if they just provide dumb pipes/interfaces that anyone's tool and interact with.
I don’t think that will happen. It sounds good, and I would like it if things operated that way - but from the company perspective how do they, for example, have a tool call that gives the customer a discount, without it getting used when it shouldn’t?
Companies want ai to replace human customer service decision making, which means it can’t just be an api that an external agent can interact with, because it needs private knowledge of company processes and access to capabilities that are abusable.
But we’re already at the point where if you manage to talk to a human, mostly you end up speaking to someone with no actual power to resolve your issue - so i think basically the future is just going to suck
> from the company perspective how do they, for example, have a tool call that gives the customer a discount, without it getting used when it shouldn’t?
I might be misunderstanding your point but I think you're in agreement with the gp, as in they are arguing for a locked down interface behind which the AI sits, narrowed to use within whatever particular operations the user can access, as opposed to a wide open AI interface with access to any operation (in principle).
So in your example there's no way to ask the AI for any old discount because the interface for doing so is locked down to just the discounts you can access, although the AI may be able to apply a discount you didn't ask for dynamically, if allowed, to give the customer a better experience.
> have a tool call that gives the customer a discount, without it getting used when it shouldn’t?
without comment on the rest of your post, a lot of discounts are just dark patterns, buy 2 for $10 or one for $6 is one of the oldest dark patterns around, and a lot of people fall for it, when they really didn't need that much whatever it was they were buying. In fact there are laws outlawing these practices coming into force for various types of products (alcohol, sugar) .
Other types of discounts like loyalty are more vague personally I think are a minor dark pattern. Negotiated discount on bulk purchases b2b are a different class, but it could be argued that you should only get the discount that the seller saves on logistics.
I'm just pointing this out because its very normalized, 'signup and get 3 months free', 'buy 2 get one free' etc, people dont bat an eyelid at, the same as advertising , but they are all just the earliest versions of dopamine hacking and dark patterns that consensus now is coming around to say probably isn't the best thing when scaled beyond a simple one to one interaction. Why are snapchat dopamine hacking with streaks but your local coffee shop stamping your card for your 10th coffee free different?
This is an amazing article. The problems it describes are exactly what we found when building a production system that used LLMs to (most of the time) produce reliable results. Extensive tests are necessary, and stakeholders have no idea how their suggestions fail in production. They just see the handful of times they tried something and had it work, not the long tail of cursed results. (“How hard can it be? Why don’t you just…”)
We didn’t get to the point of self-built prompts, as the article suggests, but it’s an intriguing idea.
No idea how effective this is, but it sure looks a lot more like engineering than most of the 'prompt engineering' things I've seen in the past years. Kudos to the author for writing this concisely without aggrandizing his work.
> the textual nature of prompts leads us to take the intentional stance towards systems which aren’t conscious, and thus miss the essential nature of their non-meaning
I see LLMs as being capable of making useful distinctions and having a rich action space. They are widely used because their operation is useful, and that can only happen when semantics work well in practice. But useful things that pay for themselves don't need our "essential nature" blessing, they already have persistence by mutual entanglement with us.
i am not reading this. it's already a terrible format to begin with and the writer of course is the typically sort that thinks anyone cares for his insipid humor and his bio. this article is trash regardless of the shreds of actual content might be.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
>Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Crafting a good prompt is what differentiates an expert's output from a beginner's. Of course you need good constraints too. But those good constraints are created precisely through good prompts.
In other words, provide my AI with tools, instead of providing me an AI that uses your tools.
That way, my AI can bring all the context it needs, and I can bring all of the settings and knowledge about what I want with me. I don't want a fractured world of tons of AIs i interact with where I have to explain all the fundamental information about what I want and how I work every time.
This also has the benefit of sidestepping the issue the essay is talking about. You provide a consistent tool, and the AI weirdness is not your issue anymore. You don't have to worry about solving for all the weird ways people prompt the AI, or the ways they break.
Companies want ai to replace human customer service decision making, which means it can’t just be an api that an external agent can interact with, because it needs private knowledge of company processes and access to capabilities that are abusable.
But we’re already at the point where if you manage to talk to a human, mostly you end up speaking to someone with no actual power to resolve your issue - so i think basically the future is just going to suck
I might be misunderstanding your point but I think you're in agreement with the gp, as in they are arguing for a locked down interface behind which the AI sits, narrowed to use within whatever particular operations the user can access, as opposed to a wide open AI interface with access to any operation (in principle).
So in your example there's no way to ask the AI for any old discount because the interface for doing so is locked down to just the discounts you can access, although the AI may be able to apply a discount you didn't ask for dynamically, if allowed, to give the customer a better experience.
without comment on the rest of your post, a lot of discounts are just dark patterns, buy 2 for $10 or one for $6 is one of the oldest dark patterns around, and a lot of people fall for it, when they really didn't need that much whatever it was they were buying. In fact there are laws outlawing these practices coming into force for various types of products (alcohol, sugar) .
Other types of discounts like loyalty are more vague personally I think are a minor dark pattern. Negotiated discount on bulk purchases b2b are a different class, but it could be argued that you should only get the discount that the seller saves on logistics.
I'm just pointing this out because its very normalized, 'signup and get 3 months free', 'buy 2 get one free' etc, people dont bat an eyelid at, the same as advertising , but they are all just the earliest versions of dopamine hacking and dark patterns that consensus now is coming around to say probably isn't the best thing when scaled beyond a simple one to one interaction. Why are snapchat dopamine hacking with streaks but your local coffee shop stamping your card for your 10th coffee free different?
Ask yourself what's in their best interest as a business? That's probably what they'll do.
There are times when markets are broken by monopoly and regulatory capture. But the assumption it can only go that way is pure cynicism.
Market forces do work quite often. You could even be that market force.
We didn’t get to the point of self-built prompts, as the article suggests, but it’s an intriguing idea.
I see LLMs as being capable of making useful distinctions and having a rich action space. They are widely used because their operation is useful, and that can only happen when semantics work well in practice. But useful things that pay for themselves don't need our "essential nature" blessing, they already have persistence by mutual entanglement with us.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
>Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.