>I think most of the issue comes from the challenge of informational coherence. Once incoherence enters the context, the intelligence drops massively. You can have a lot of context and LLMs can maintain coherence— but not if the context itself is incoherent.
As a non-expert, part of my definition of intelligence is that the system can detect incoherence, a.k.a reject bullshit. LLMs today can't do that and will happily emit bullshit in response.
Maybe the "gates" in the "workflows" discussed in the Anthropic article are a practical solution to that. But that still just seems like inserting human intelligence into the system for a specific engineering domain; not a general solution.
As a non-expert, part of my definition of intelligence is that the system can detect incoherence, a.k.a reject bullshit. LLMs today can't do that and will happily emit bullshit in response.
Maybe the "gates" in the "workflows" discussed in the Anthropic article are a practical solution to that. But that still just seems like inserting human intelligence into the system for a specific engineering domain; not a general solution.