Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Would you like to see some of my own examples of wild success?

I have a system that entirely reverse engineers old arcade games. Creates semantic symbol mappings that were considered impossible just a couple years ago.

Granted, it took me a couple weeks to build the system.

From impossible to a couple weeks in just a couple years.

Would you like to see it or continue to pretend these things don't exist? Your call.

(It's finding the coolest stuff - the anti-tampering hacks they put into the old machines is fascinating.)



I’ve made my own arcade games with an LLM. It was fun though the code wasn’t great.

Mostly I felt they reproduced games from the training data, some with more examples available worked better than others.

I use them most days for work, and for that reason don’t trust them that much and certainly don’t worry or fantasise about AGI.


You were making some pretty strong statements about the usefulness of harnesses that seemed to me to be entirely detached from reality. Maybe I misunderstood you? Because I can provide evidence to correct that misconception.

Another of my projects is to incorporate Pixar's ideas from RenderMan into a 3d printer slicer. Displacement shaders, in a 3d printer, have never been done before. Would you like to see that? I had the idea 10 years ago but it was too tedious to implement. I have a working system now in just a couple weeks AGAIN.

Anyone claiming agents aren't profoundly useful is WRONG. If you disagree, please let's discuss it.


I’m pleased for you.

In my experience the use of agents and harnesses and other scaffolding around them doesn’t improve the performance of LLMs much, which is adequate for some tasks under supervision but nothing like general intelligence (or electricity for that matter). But good that it works for you.


OH - I think I understand now. You're like LeCun - dismissive of LLMs in all their forms. So of course agents can't lead to AGI, because LLMs just can't.

Which I've always found so strange. Language was always considered the pinnacle of the human mind - right up until we created LLMs. Now it's the world model - the things that animals always had and the thing we used to look down on.

From my perspective, language is still at the top. I'm not a fickle lover of the gaps.


> In my experience the use of agents and harnesses and other scaffolding around them doesn’t improve the performance of LLMs much

I have to say - that seems straight-up crazy to me. Would you mind digging into that discussion?

As just one example - in a harness I can ask an agent to confirm everything it says via a second sub agent - which dramatically improves the output. It almost entirely solves the problem of hallucinations. You don't see that as an improvement?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: