You replied to the wrong person. Look further down thread for the person who posted that link.

Argh. Thank you.

They replied to the wrong comment. The one they meant to reply to was from monero-xmr further down.

Thank you.

That's what you get for using proprietary software instead of the GNU version: StaLLMan

I've been to developer conferences in the US. Lack of food is definitely not a problem.

He shoots, he scores!

The same way "wealth creators" do today?

Is this a really bad attempt at a Limerick or some other form I'm not familiar with?

So you have two AIs. Let's call them Claude and Hal. Whenever Claude gets something wrong, Hal is shown what went wrong and asked to rewrite the claude.md prompt to get Claude to do it right. Eventually Hal starts shouting at Claude.

Why is this inevitable? Because Hal only ever sees Claude's failures and none of the successes. So of course Hal gets frustrated and angry that Claude continually gets everything wrong no matter how Hal prompts him.

(Of course it's not really getting frustrated and annoyed, but a person would, so Hal plays that role)

I don't think it's inevitable often the AI will just keep looping again and again. It can happily without frustration loop forever.

It doesn't loop though -- it has continuously updating context -- and if that context continues to head one direction it will eventually break down.

My own personal experience with LLMs is that after enough context they just become useless -- starting to make stupid mistakes that they successfully avoided earlier.

I assume old failures aren't kept in the context window at all, for the simple reason that the context window isn't that big.

That didn't happen in the book. Everyone is silent and eventually Frodo speaks up with dread and a feeling of inevitability.

Though I do not know the way.

I don't think LOTR supports your case at all.

I guess Frodo is the main hero. He is left the ring and is forced to leave his home. His shortcut through the old forest nearly kills the entire party until he's rescued by Tom Bombadil. He then nearly dies in the barrow until he's rescued again by Tom.

He doesn't know what to do at Bree until Strider helps him. He succumbs to the temptation to put on the ring at Weathertop and then becomes a burden to the rest until Rivendell.

He doesn't know how to get into Mordor until Gollum helps him. He gets stung by Shelob and captured by orcs and it's only because Sam took the ring that the whole mission isn't blown.

He runs out of strength climbing Mount Doom and again he's saved by Sam carrying him. When he gets to the Cracks of Doom he fails to destroy the ring and is saved by Gollum attacking him.

And even back in the Shire, he can't settle and ends up leaving.

He's just not a very heroic figure and more affected by circumstance, continually requiring rescue. Maybe a bit more like Arthur Dent than it first appears. :)

I disagree, he is extremely courageous. The fact that he does it not out of some sense of innate heroism and adventuring desire makes him even greater. He's not there due to anything else other than is sense of right and wrong.

There are several heroes in LOTR:

- The more "heroic" archetype of Aragorn

- The flawed character of Boromir that atones himself for his sins with one last heroic stand

- The unwilling but ultimately acceptance of Frodo

- The more laidback silly courage of Merry and Piping

- The devoted courage of Sam

- Even Galdalf, when he faces that fiery beast (I don't remember the name right now) and Sauruman.

- And there are many side characters that also fit the role (like the Rohirim)

It is truly a tale full or heroes and several acts of great courage. Many of them might not have gotten into it willingly, but they surely took on the role seriously and honorably.

Indeed, I think what Frodo would like most is for it all to just end. Exactly as Adams said of Dent when discussing his motivations/desires with Hollywood producers.

I guess "What bro!" is less sexist than "What ho!"