I understand, and I totally get where you are coming from: My initial attempts had "ceremony" that was not actually useful, and it took several attempts for me to understand what actually
is useful.
A talk from Google Deepmind I heard at Princeton ("We Can't Understand AI Using our Existing Vocabulary") argued convincingly that the problem we encounter with models is one of total incomprehension. We are two very different ways of perceiving, processing, and thinking. We need to create more surface for communication and exchange, we need scaffold conversation more.
The models are trained to be cybernetic: To take your wishes and make it their command with as little interruption as possible. Even if they've now been encouraged to surface some questions, there's so much that is just taken away and that is decided. If you are interested in speed that's perhaps useful, but there's also a design space that is foreclosed from you that way.
At any rate, the models here are encouraged to:
- Structure the braindumps of the human, flesh them out and resolve any open questions they can on their own
- Surface, to the human, the tensions they can't resolve alone under the form of ORRCF questions
This is precisely calibrated to become a medium that, far from being about ceremony, is about resolving misunderstandings in the present.
Over time, the models get to know you not just by your instructions of what to do, but also by you providing more definition to your own thinking, such that it becomes easier for them to generalize it across new decisions and (if you import records) across new projects.
Re: your "despite specific instruction", yes, teachability is a big deal: I've been working most of the last few months putting together skills, MCPs, etc., and it's clear that providing granular and expansive documentary support is important. I suggest the plugin, adrs4ai/plugins, that you can already install and that I hope to be on the Anthropic Marketplace eventually!
Thanks for your interest and your thoughts, and I'd be interested if you have any more!
A talk from Google Deepmind I heard at Princeton ("We Can't Understand AI Using our Existing Vocabulary") argued convincingly that the problem we encounter with models is one of total incomprehension. We are two very different ways of perceiving, processing, and thinking. We need to create more surface for communication and exchange, we need scaffold conversation more.
The models are trained to be cybernetic: To take your wishes and make it their command with as little interruption as possible. Even if they've now been encouraged to surface some questions, there's so much that is just taken away and that is decided. If you are interested in speed that's perhaps useful, but there's also a design space that is foreclosed from you that way.
At any rate, the models here are encouraged to: - Structure the braindumps of the human, flesh them out and resolve any open questions they can on their own - Surface, to the human, the tensions they can't resolve alone under the form of ORRCF questions
This is precisely calibrated to become a medium that, far from being about ceremony, is about resolving misunderstandings in the present.
Over time, the models get to know you not just by your instructions of what to do, but also by you providing more definition to your own thinking, such that it becomes easier for them to generalize it across new decisions and (if you import records) across new projects.
Re: your "despite specific instruction", yes, teachability is a big deal: I've been working most of the last few months putting together skills, MCPs, etc., and it's clear that providing granular and expansive documentary support is important. I suggest the plugin, adrs4ai/plugins, that you can already install and that I hope to be on the Anthropic Marketplace eventually!
Thanks for your interest and your thoughts, and I'd be interested if you have any more!