You gotta give them guardrails. It's like AI in chess. Engines work because the game has a limited rule set and can explore possibilities ina closed space. When you are talking to an LLM you are *defining those rules of that "game"* for each session. You are literally making the game as you go. If the "game" is small enough, LLMs work. If it is too big or too undefined, there won't be enough tokens to do well.
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (6)
A user asked our chatbot to make it a docx file (it can't), after the user berated it a bit, the agent raw dogged Python to zip a bunch of raw XML tags together but it was to a tmp/ so they couldn't get it anyway. The logs were nuts tho
In fact, when you fail to offer some close rule set for the AI to work, the framework ends up choosing a rule set for you. And that rule set choice is usually wrong.
Been finding that the hard way. My session rules very managed now and whilst I still find it challenging, big game changer. Sometimes takes time to work out what the rules should though
Gimme some tokens papa Vitor
This is an exact parallel to life itself. If you fail to give life a rule set it will define one for you.
It's all about guardrails. I put the guardrails on myself, the software architecture, and on the code itself. That way they're enforced reliably.