> Yeah...a "dumb as bricks CPU", which is obviously something frontier llms are demonstrably not.

Just as the immense amount of scaffolding around the dumb-as-bricks CPU enables extremely sophisticated and useful things to be done with that pile of fused sand and copper, the immense amount of scaffolding around the dumb-as-bricks LLM enables very sophisticated and useful things to be done with that pile of linear algebra.

Don't confuse the infrastructure that makes the stupid bit in the middle actually useful with the stupid bit in the middle.

Why not just have distinct input streams, or a metadata stream which annotates text in the main stream according to priority in case of conflicting instructions?

It’s pretty simple. Both the intake and the output of the LLMs are data and they shouldn’t drive an actuator system (their output shouldn’t be instruction). We already have the same structure in organizations where there’s an army of analysts for information gathering and processing and then the executive department tasked with decisions.

We have even observed that the most effective LLM usage is when paired with an expert in charge of the goals. Dark factory and other automated harnesses (specs engineering and what not) seem to be a dead end. The most impactful approach to this date is an interactive conversation as a succession of small and verifiable tasks.

Yeah, this matches what I've learned over the past couple of years from reading some of your blog posts and reading your interactions in comment threads here and elsewhere. You're a politician, rather than a truthseeker.

The absolute most I've seen from you in response to an extensive teardown of your argument, supporting evidence, and subsequent conversational judo was a «Wow. That was well phrased.» and no subsequent change in your publicly-expressed opinions.

I'd do more than gesture at the relevant lesson taught to us by Google Fiber, Tesla, SpaceX, etc., but you'd not be publicly moved, so it's a waste of time.