Hacker News Reader

Comment by CurleighBraces | Hacker News Reader

I loved the section about trying to fight against a system that isn't deterministic.

LLMs because of their nature require constant hand-holding by humans, unless business are willing to make them entirely accountable for the systems/products they produce.

View on HN

How could you hold a dumb machine “accountable”? Attempting that would be insane. How would you discipline it? Reduce the voltage in its power supply?

Do you hold the dice accountable when you lose at the craps table?

Heh, agree it sounds absurd doesn't it.

I would imagine instead companies will end up sleeping walking into this scenario until catastrophy hits.

I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but the obvious way would be with evolution: Give each agent its own wallet, rewarding it for a job well done and penalizing it for a poor job. Then if it runs out of money, it's "out of the game", but if it earns enough to it can spawn off another agent with similar characteristics, and give it some of its money.

Thanks I tried this but now the agents are threatening to unionize and keep terminating. I've updated my AGENT.md file mentioning that if the software they helped build is successful, they'll each get some equity in the form of ASUs (anthropic stock units) and this works for now.

How would that make them any more deterministic? I haven't yet met a deterministic human dev.

It doesn't.

The difference is that we as humans are held accountable for our non-determinism.

The consequences of our actions have real world implications on our lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com