> the LLM does not understand what this text meansThis is true, but unrelated to your original claim, that LLM algorithms and agentic algorithms are reducible to, exhaustively go down a list.
> No, they don't continue even when challenges are encountered. They try X, if X does not work, they _abandon_ X and try Y.
You're missing the objective here. It has an objective of Z, and so it tries approach X in furtherance of objective Z. Approach X does not work, so it analyzes the failure mode, then devises a new approach Y which takes that failure mode into account. It then tries approach Y, and succeeds at its objective of Z. This is persistence in pursuit of objective Z.
If that's not the behavior you're seeing, maybe share your X, Y, and Z here, and smart HN folks can help fix things.
> That is blatantly not the common usage of "persistent".
Just look at the definition.
> Ask an LLM, they will confirm you that it's incorrect
Just look at the definition.
This is true, but unrelated to your original claim, that LLM algorithms and agentic algorithms are reducible to, exhaustively go down a list.
> No, they don't continue even when challenges are encountered. They try X, if X does not work, they _abandon_ X and try Y.
You're missing the objective here. It has an objective of Z, and so it tries approach X in furtherance of objective Z. Approach X does not work, so it analyzes the failure mode, then devises a new approach Y which takes that failure mode into account. It then tries approach Y, and succeeds at its objective of Z. This is persistence in pursuit of objective Z.
If that's not the behavior you're seeing, maybe share your X, Y, and Z here, and smart HN folks can help fix things.
> That is blatantly not the common usage of "persistent".
Just look at the definition.
> Ask an LLM, they will confirm you that it's incorrect
Just look at the definition.