When you get some abstraction working you concretize it in something deterministic, or sort of “cache” that knowledge bit (aka write me a function, class, library, whatever). In the future, the nondeterministic path now has a deterministic piece to lean on as it explores the problem space. Rinse, repeat, eventually you have a mostly deterministic system now. Leave flexibility in space where you need that nondeterminism.
First we gave LLMs access to bash commands. Now we give them access to customized commands which they can reuse. It's English language extending its claws into deterministic programming language. Now can we please have backtracking and dynamic programming like thinking loop built into English language or such orchestration prompts.
When you get some abstraction working you concretize it in something deterministic, or sort of “cache” that knowledge bit (aka write me a function, class, library, whatever). In the future, the nondeterministic path now has a deterministic piece to lean on as it explores the problem space. Rinse, repeat, eventually you have a mostly deterministic system now. Leave flexibility in space where you need that nondeterminism.
Rather than telling the LLM "loop through these files", tell it "write a script to loop through these files", then hard-code that script somewhere.
The models will eventually be able to know that they need to do that to get the thing done from natural language
"The models will eventually..." Yeah but they haven't, and it's been years now. Also who cares? We have problems right now that need to be solved.
First we gave LLMs access to bash commands. Now we give them access to customized commands which they can reuse. It's English language extending its claws into deterministic programming language. Now can we please have backtracking and dynamic programming like thinking loop built into English language or such orchestration prompts.
a guess but i think they mean take the orchestration prompt and prompt yet another llm to turn that prompt into code..?