I don't think it's "on top"? I think it's an expert system where (at least) one of the experts is an LLM, but it doesn't have to be LLMs from bottom to top.
Except past attempts didn't have the ability to pass on to modern foundation models.
Look, I dunno if this idea makes sense, it's why I posed it as a question rather than a conviction. But I broadly have a sense that when a new technology hits, people are like "let's use it for everything!", and then as it matures, people find more success in interesting it with current approaches, or even trying older ideas but within the context of the new technology.
And it just strikes me that this "routing to tools" thing looks a lot like the part of expert systems that did work pretty well. But now we have the capability to make those tools themselves significantly smarter.
I don't think it's "on top"? I think it's an expert system where (at least) one of the experts is an LLM, but it doesn't have to be LLMs from bottom to top.
On the side, under, wherever. The point is, this is just re-inventing past failed attempts at AI.
Except past attempts didn't have the ability to pass on to modern foundation models.
Look, I dunno if this idea makes sense, it's why I posed it as a question rather than a conviction. But I broadly have a sense that when a new technology hits, people are like "let's use it for everything!", and then as it matures, people find more success in interesting it with current approaches, or even trying older ideas but within the context of the new technology.
And it just strikes me that this "routing to tools" thing looks a lot like the part of expert systems that did work pretty well. But now we have the capability to make those tools themselves significantly smarter.
6 replies →