Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaurenHunter | Hacker News Reader

"More Agents is all you need" https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05120

I could not find a "Agents considered harmful" related to AI, but there is this one: "AgentHarm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of LLM agents" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.09024

This "Agents considered harmful" is not AI-related: https://www.scribd.com/document/361564026/Math-works-09

View on HN

When reading anthropics blog on agents I basically took away that their advice is you shouldn't use them to solve most problems.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/building-effective-agents

"For many applications, however, optimizing single LLM calls with retrieval and in-context examples is usually enough."

True this was also my conclusion in October. Most of the complexity we are building is to fight against the limitations of LLMs. If in some way we could embed all our tools in a single call and have the LLM successfully figure out which tools to call then that would be it and we wouldn’t need any of those frameworks or libraries. But it turns out the reality of agents and tool use is pretty stark and you wouldn’t know that looking at the AI influencer spamming X, Linkedin, Youtube

However The state of agents slightly changed and while we had 25% accuracy in multiturn conversations we re now at 50.

Morpheus taught me they are quite harmful.

Hi - have a look at this book if you are interested [1] (Mike Wooldridge, Multi-Agent Systems)

[1] https://amzn.eu/d/6a1KgnL

Here are Mike's credentials :https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/michael.wooldridge/

Real agents have never been tried

Reply on news.ycombinator.com