> Because nobody actually wants a "web app". People want food, love, sex or: solutions.
Okay but when I start my car I want to drive it, not fuck it.
Okay but when I start my car I want to drive it, not fuck it.
If we were in an imagined world and you are headed to work
You either walk out your door and there is a self driving car, or you walk out of your door and there is a train waiting for you or you walk out of your door and there is a helicopter or you walk out of your door and there is a literal worm hole.
Let's say all take the same amount of time, are equally safe, same cost, have the same amenities inside, and "feel the same" - would you care if it were different every day?
I don't think I would.
Maybe the wormhole causes slight nausea ;)
In order to get to your destination, you need to explain where you want to go. Whatever you call that “imperative language”, in order to actually get the thing you want, you have to explain it. That’s an unavoidable aspect of interacting with anything that responds to commands, computer or not.
If the AI misunderstands those instructions and takes you to a slightly different place than you want to go, that’s a huge problem. But it’s bound to happen if you’re writing machine instructions in a natural language like English and in an environment where the same instructions aren’t consistently or deterministically interpreted. It’s even more likely if the destination or task is particularly difficult/complex to explain at the desired level of detail.
There’s a certain irreducible level of complexity involved in directing and translating a user’s intent into machine output simply and reliably that people keep trying to “solve”, but the issue keeps reasserting itself generation after generation. COBOL was “plain english” and people assumed it would make interacting with computers like giving instructions to another employee over half a century ago.
The primary difficulty is not the language used to articulate intent, the primary difficulty is articulating intent.
The specific events that follow when asking a taxi driver where to go may not be exactly repeatable, but reality enforces physical determinism that is not explicitly understood by probabilistic token predictors. If you drive into a wall you will obey deterministic laws of momentum. If you drive off a cliff you will obey deterministic laws of gravity. These are certainties, not high probabilities. A physical taxi cannot have a catastrophic instant change in implementation and have its wheels or engine disappear when it stops to pick you up. A human taxi driver cannot instantly swap their physical taxi for a submarine, they cannot swap new york with paris, they cannot pass through buildings… the real world has a physically determined option-space that symbolic token predictors don’t understand yet.
And the reason humans are good at interpreting human intent correctly is not just that we’ve had billions of years of training with direct access to physical reality, but because we all share the same basic structure of inbuilt assumptions and “training history”. When interacting with a machine, so many of those basic unstated shared assumptions are absent, which is why it takes more effort to explicitly articulate what it is exactly that you want.
We’re getting much better at getting machines to infer intent from plain english, but even if we created a machine which could perfectly interpret our intentions, that still doesn’t solve the issue of needing to explain what you want in enough detail to actually get it for most tasks. Moving from point A to point B is a pretty simple task to describe. Many tasks aren’t like that, and the complexity comes as much from explaining what it is you want as it does from the implementation.
it's not as far as your experience goes - you press pedal, it accelerates. You turn the steering, it goes the way it turns. What the car does is deterministic.
More importantly, it does this every time, and the amount of turning (or accelerating) is the same today as it was yesterday.
If an LLM interpreted those inputs, can you say with confidence, that you will accelerate in a way that you predicted? If that is the case, then i would be fine with an LLM interpreted input to drive. Otherwise, how do you know, for sure, that pressing the brakes will stop the car, before you hit somebody in front of you?
of course, you could argue that the input is no longer your moving the brake pads etc - just name a destination and you get there, and that is suppose to be deterministic, as long as you describe your destination correctly. But is that where LLM is at today? or is that the imagined future of LLMs?
It's the same as having a function called "factorial" but you change the multiplication operation to addition instead.
This can be answered though, albeit imperfectly. On a more reductionist level, we are the cosmos experiencing itself. Now there are many ways to approach this. But just providing us with the right chemicals to feel pleasure/satisfaction is a step backwards. All the evolution of a human being, just to end up functionally like an amoeba or a bacteria.
So we need to retrace our steps backwards in this thought process.
I could write a long essay on this.
But, to exist in first place, and to keep existing against all the constraints of the universe, is already pretty fucking amazing.
Whether we do all the things we do, just in order to stay alive and keep existing, or if the point is to be the cosmos “experiencing itself”, is pretty much two sides of the same coin.
When you suddenly realize walking down the street that the very high fentanyl zombie is having a better day than you are.
Yeah, you can push the button in your brain that says "You won the game." However, all those buttons were there so you would self-replicate energy efficient compute. Your brain runs on 10 watts after all. It's going to take a while for AI to get there, especially without the capability for efficient self-repair.
In one scenario every atom's trajectory was destined from the creation of time and we're just sitting in the passenger seat watching. In another, if we do have free will then we control the "real world" underneath - the quantum and particle realms - as if through a UI. In the pod scenario, we are just blobs experiencing chemical reactions through some kind of translation device - but aren't we the same in the other scenarios too?
Every reason people prefer a car or bike over the bus is a reason non-deterministic agents are a bad interface.
And that analogy works as a glimpse into the future - we’re looking at a fast approaching world where LLMs are the interface to everything for most of us - except for the wealthy, who have access to more deterministic services or actual human agents. How long before the rich person car rental service is the only one with staff at the desk, and the cheaper options are all LLM based agents? Poor people ride the bus, rich people get to drive.
It has always seemed to me that workflow or processes need to be deterministic and not decided by an LLM.
Either way, these silly reductionist games aren't addressing the point: if I just want to get from A to B then I definitely want the absolute minimum of unpredictability in how I do it.
I wonder now, if everything is always different and suddenly every day would be the same. How many times as terrifying would that be compared to the opposite?
Your ancestors didn't want horses and carts, bicycles, shoes - they wanted the solutions of the day to the same scenarios above.
To dismiss the entire universe and its hostilities towards our existence and the workarounds we invent in response as mere means to an end rather than our essence is truly wild.
My point was that there is no true end goal as long as whims continue. The need to craft yet more means is equally endless. The crafting is the primary human experience, not the using. The using of a means inevitably becomes transparent and boring.
A job is better if your coworkers are of a caliber that they become a secondary family.