Comment by adastra22
10 days ago
Actually it works the other way. With multiple agents they can often correct each others mistaken assumptions. Part of the value of this approach is precisely that you do get better results with fewer hallucinated assumptions.
Still makes this change from Anthropic stupid.
The corrective agent has the exact same percentage chance at making the mistake. "Correcting" an assumption that was previously correct into an incorrect one.
If a singular agent has a 1% chance of making an incorrect assumption, then 10 agents have that same 1% chance in aggregate.
You are assuming statistical independence, which is explicitly not correct here. There is also an error in your analysis - what matters is whether they make the same wrong assumption. That is far less likely, and becomes exponentially unlikely with increasing trials.
I can attest that it works well in practice, and my organization is already deploying this technique internally.
How several wrong assumptions make it right with increasing trials?
7 replies →
Nonsense. If you have 16 binary decisions that’s 64k possible paths.
These are not independent samplings.
Indeed. Doesn’t that make it worse? Prior decisions will bring up path dependent options ensuring they aren’t even close to the same path.
1 reply →