Yes, exactly. The issue detection step isn't particularly well-suited to a LLM, as it will tell you itself. The issues can be established deterministically by examining the Cloud resource data with a set of relatively…
It's not that sophisticated ;-) There's command editing using readline, result pagination using less and I output links to the reports and the Cloud console using ANSI HTTP link escapes. Primitive but sufficient.
I think in many real-life cases it's a mix - for example impure code that deals with the outside world to set up the data needed for the pure "core" of the app to run over.
You could always read the docs? https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=clpfd-integer-a... https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=!/0
I've just rolled out an internal SWI Prolog app that is similar to one linked to elsewhere in the thread [1]. We have a large Cloud estate with 10s of thousands of resources in it. Detecting unused or misconfigured…
I get what he's saying but I think it's overstated. I'd categorise his list as "Things to be careful with" not "Coding horrors". For example, "The primary means to make your programs defective in this way is to use…
Mostly overblown.
Name me a new bit of tech that hasn't been hyped beyond reasonable bounds. And yes, this is one of the worst examples. But saying it doesn't have its uses isn't reasonable either.
Go figure it out, it will be a useful challenge for you.
I'd tell you to read it again, but you seem to be struggling.
I'm not going to repeat myself, I've already explained the context to you - funny how you seem to have ignored that. If you want to find out, do the experiment yourself.
You clearly missed the "The truth is somewhere in between" bit.
Picking phrases from what I said and deliberately misquoting them out of context does not make you right.
"exactly this inspection" != "what does it exactly do"
Nicely put. I haven't seen anyone say that the introspection abilities of LLMs are up to much, but claiming that it's completely impossible to get a glimpse behind the curtain is untrue.
Yes of course there's a risk it may still be incorrect but querying the LLM with the limited facilities it provides for introspection is more likely to have at least some connection with facts than the alternative that…
I don't owe you anything. If you want to go find out, go do it yourself. You could even ask a LLM to help you if you,like...
People have applied "think" to the actions of software for decades. Of course it LLM's don't "think" in the human sense, but "What the output of the model indicates in an approximate way about its current internal…
"Not in the slightest" is an overreach, the paper the second level down from that link doesn't really support the conclusion in the blog post - the paper is much more nuanced. Are they going to fib to you sometimes? Yes…
> It would be interesting to see one of these evals and how it generated the score, to work out whether it is in fact arbitrary or based on some scale of points. So go repeat the exercise yourself. I've already said…
Is that based on your "deep understanding" of how LLMs work or have you actually tried it? If you watch the execution trace of a Skill in action, you can see that it's doing exactly this inspection when the skill runs -…
They aren't arbitrary, as I said earlier I got the LLM to de a detailed analysis first, then summarise. If I was doing this "properly" for something I was doing myself I'd go through the LLM summary point by point and…
No of course you wouldn't because LLMs are nondeterministic. But the scores would likely be in the same ballpark. The scores I posted are the result of a much more detailed analysis done by the LLM, which was far too…
I wouldn't go that far but the only way I've found so far of getting a reasonable insight into why a LLM has chosen to do something is to ask it.
Because he's asking the LLM to interpret those instructions to drive his process. If the skills are poorly defined or incomplete then the process will be as well, and the LLM may misinterpret, choose to ignore, or add…
Yes, exactly. The issue detection step isn't particularly well-suited to a LLM, as it will tell you itself. The issues can be established deterministically by examining the Cloud resource data with a set of relatively…
It's not that sophisticated ;-) There's command editing using readline, result pagination using less and I output links to the reports and the Cloud console using ANSI HTTP link escapes. Primitive but sufficient.
I think in many real-life cases it's a mix - for example impure code that deals with the outside world to set up the data needed for the pure "core" of the app to run over.
You could always read the docs? https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=clpfd-integer-a... https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=!/0
I've just rolled out an internal SWI Prolog app that is similar to one linked to elsewhere in the thread [1]. We have a large Cloud estate with 10s of thousands of resources in it. Detecting unused or misconfigured…
I get what he's saying but I think it's overstated. I'd categorise his list as "Things to be careful with" not "Coding horrors". For example, "The primary means to make your programs defective in this way is to use…
Mostly overblown.
Name me a new bit of tech that hasn't been hyped beyond reasonable bounds. And yes, this is one of the worst examples. But saying it doesn't have its uses isn't reasonable either.
Go figure it out, it will be a useful challenge for you.
I'd tell you to read it again, but you seem to be struggling.
I'm not going to repeat myself, I've already explained the context to you - funny how you seem to have ignored that. If you want to find out, do the experiment yourself.
You clearly missed the "The truth is somewhere in between" bit.
Picking phrases from what I said and deliberately misquoting them out of context does not make you right.
"exactly this inspection" != "what does it exactly do"
Nicely put. I haven't seen anyone say that the introspection abilities of LLMs are up to much, but claiming that it's completely impossible to get a glimpse behind the curtain is untrue.
Yes of course there's a risk it may still be incorrect but querying the LLM with the limited facilities it provides for introspection is more likely to have at least some connection with facts than the alternative that…
I don't owe you anything. If you want to go find out, go do it yourself. You could even ask a LLM to help you if you,like...
People have applied "think" to the actions of software for decades. Of course it LLM's don't "think" in the human sense, but "What the output of the model indicates in an approximate way about its current internal…
"Not in the slightest" is an overreach, the paper the second level down from that link doesn't really support the conclusion in the blog post - the paper is much more nuanced. Are they going to fib to you sometimes? Yes…
> It would be interesting to see one of these evals and how it generated the score, to work out whether it is in fact arbitrary or based on some scale of points. So go repeat the exercise yourself. I've already said…
Is that based on your "deep understanding" of how LLMs work or have you actually tried it? If you watch the execution trace of a Skill in action, you can see that it's doing exactly this inspection when the skill runs -…
They aren't arbitrary, as I said earlier I got the LLM to de a detailed analysis first, then summarise. If I was doing this "properly" for something I was doing myself I'd go through the LLM summary point by point and…
No of course you wouldn't because LLMs are nondeterministic. But the scores would likely be in the same ballpark. The scores I posted are the result of a much more detailed analysis done by the LLM, which was far too…
I wouldn't go that far but the only way I've found so far of getting a reasonable insight into why a LLM has chosen to do something is to ask it.
Because he's asking the LLM to interpret those instructions to drive his process. If the skills are poorly defined or incomplete then the process will be as well, and the LLM may misinterpret, choose to ignore, or add…