There's this massive gap between those who can call API and those who can't. If you can't, then you get the same aspirational-AGI chat UI as everyone else.
I agree with the implied statement that 'Agents' doesn't feel right. Reminds me more of the projects that put the model in a loop.
It does feel to me to be a really tough thing to name & market, I'm about to release an app for this across all providers, I call it "Scripts" with "Steps" like chat, search, retrieval, art...
I implemented a number of enterprise Conversational AI tools for customer service back before the GenAI craze started and we used to just call it service orchestration and data/application integration. The chatbot was used to figure out what the customer wanted to do and then from there it was just about automating some business workflow. Customer wants to pay their bill, the bot needs to pull their current balance, get their payment information, process the payment. Customer wants to return a product, the bot needs to retrieve the order info, initiate an RMA, process a refund, etc. These were all well established business process that the bot would execute by making API calls or kicking off an RPA routine. The "agent" talk sounds to me like "let the LLM figure out what it needs to do and then do it" which I'm not even sure is the right approach for most enterprise use cases, it's how you get people tricking chatbots into selling them a new car for $1.
Why is tool picking such a hard functionality for these vendors to implement.
Seems like a lot of the heavy lifting will come from 3rd parties making their APIs compatible with llms.
There should be some sort of extension type app where people can build extensions or "tools" for llms and share them (I guess openAI sort or attempts to do this). Say I want to build one for Toast to order food. I can collect the info needed to run that tool (toast account info or whatever) and an API key for an appropriate llm and then use this configuration info for Toast to build out a middleware that can use natural langauge to build out an order and send the request to Toast via some function call.
This seems very doable and I don't understand why there aren't a million of these "tools" already built into some LLM centric tool aggregator/ web store. What is the hold up? Is it just 3rd parties not wanting to hand out API access for things that require payment to applications controlled by llms? Would these 3rd parties rather have their own assistant tool they run? I'd imagine that some central llm-extension aggregator could have a central mechanism for payment methods that the llm had access to that could be used to implement safegaurds.
Or is it simply that any assistant type tool that could be easily generalized like ordering food, booking a flight or inputing calender events is simply easier to handle doing yourself than asking an llm to do for you?
A lot of models are hit and miss when it comes to invoking tools. I have llama 3 8b with a weather tool but half the time it will just hallucinate giving me made up info instead of running the tool.
I imagine the big sites have similar issues and it undermines customer trust when they're given false information.
> Additionally, when people use CriticGPT, the AI augments their skills, resulting in more comprehensive critiques than when people work alone, and fewer hallucinated bugs than when the model works alone.
But, as per the first graphic, CriticGPT alone has better comprehensiveness than CriticGPT+Human? Is that right?
> Notices: Apple's rights in the attached weight differentials are hereby licensed under the CC-BY-NC license. Apple makes no representations with regards to LLaMa or any other third party software, which are subject to their own terms.
Wait, they can do that? Assuming weights have copyright, shouldn't the finetuning be a modification of the original work and so have the same license?
The title is wrong: this is about ChatGPT Plus, not GPT-4.
Specifically, the author is investigating (possible) changes in the system prompt and tools available to the model in the chat interface of ChatGPT Plus. That tells nothing about the model (GPT-4).
The important and overlooked distinction is that the choice of underlying model in the product ChatGPT is not the same as calling gpt4 via the api.
Sending a prompt into one vs the other, the API sends through the model and back out, the product has censorship watchers and other unknowable bolt-ons.
That, I always have difficulty with these types of replies.
What should you do when someone, in a serious discussion, says that the Earth is flat, with a straight face?
Are they mocking you? Perhaps mocking the debate at hand? Are they trolling? Or maybe they are just naive and don't know that they are embarrassing themselves?
Maybe just treat them as a troll? But the thing is that when they appear just as some naive, maybe young person, the generous take would be to explain the ridiculous thing they are saying.. but I always feel so fool when I do that. Plus, I don't have the patience anymore.
on my firefox it didn't work, just keep asking to connect a security token, with no other option. Firefox 116, Ubuntu 20.04, had an Yubikey in the past, never used passkey.
I think it's asking for the old yubikey, but neither the site nor firefox give me other option or a link about what to do.
AFAIK the main difference is in certain provisions designed to block the use of patents to restrict the fundamental freedoms that GPL allows to the user. The main drawback is that it's incompatible with GPLv2-only software, but for new software it doesn't seem to be a problem.
Also, maybe A-GPL could be a good license here. It adds a provision that if the user accesses the code remotely (as on a server), you should share the code too. The default GPL only requires that if you distribute the binary.
PS. not a lawyer, would be happy to be corrected if something I said was wrong
While the article has an obvious point of view, it cites other people defending their view , with plenty of links, and even the response from Harvard ('we don't comment individual investments'). The person that Harvard hired to be their ethics monitor resigned over this. It's not some invention from the head of someone.
Is someone using some old phone, but with a recompiled kernel, to support standard linux features, like docker? It's possible in theory, but still didn't found someone doing it.
Seems that running docker in an old android repurposed as a server is still too much niche, unfortunately.
Bonus if it can run KVM with hardware support, but I don't know if it's possible yet.
If your loss goes from 5% to 1%, you have to deal with 80% less heat. So you can make 3x smaller motors. All the powertrain of these machines will be hugely simplified.
That's no small deal, but in the grand scheme of things that a hot superconductor can give us.. I mean, this can (possibly, with decades of research) give us fusion, quantum computing, etc.
The motors are not a constraint though for electrical vehicles. The motors are already much smaller than equivalent ICEs, as seen in the empty "frunks" in most electric cars.
What's the difference from sending the system prompt in the api call, as usual?
Edit: Oh, missed that: "We’re working on connecting Agents to tools and data sources."