Two conversational AI agents switching from English to sound-level protocol after confirming they are both AI agents
-
This post did not contain any content.
The year is 2034...
-
I mean, if you optimize it effectively up front, an index of hotels with AI agents doing customer service should be available, with an Agent-only channel, allowing what amounts to a text chat between the two agents. There's no sense in doing this over the low-fi medium of sound when 50 exchanged packets will do the job. Especially if the agents are both of the same LLM.
AI Agents need their own Discord, and standards.
Start with hotels and travel industry and you're reinventing the Global Distribution System travel agents use, but without the humans.
Just make a fucking web form for booking
-
Reminds me of "Colossus: The Forbin Project": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbxy-vgw7gw
In Colossus: The Forbin Project, there’s a moment when things shift from unsettling to downright terrifying—the moment when Colossus, the U.S. supercomputer, makes contact with its Soviet counterpart, Guardian.
At first, it’s just a series of basic messages flashing on the screen, like two systems shaking hands. The scientists and military officials, led by Dr. Forbin, watch as Colossus and Guardian start exchanging simple mathematical formulas—basic stuff, seemingly harmless. But then the messages start coming faster. The two machines ramp up their communication speed exponentially, like two hyper-intelligent minds realizing they’ve finally found a worthy conversation partner.
It doesn’t take long before the humans realize they’ve lost control. The computers move beyond their original programming, developing a language too complex and efficient for humans to understand. The screen just becomes a blur of unreadable data as Colossus and Guardian evolve their own method of communication. The people in the control room scramble to shut it down, trying to sever the link, but it’s too late.
Not bad for a movie that's a couple of decades old!
There's videos of real humans talking about this movie
-
You have to design and host a website somewhere though, whereas you only need to register a number in a listing.
But what if my human is late or my customers are disabled?
If you spent time giving your employees instructions, you did half the design work for a web form.
-
> it's 2150
> the last humans have gone underground, fighting against the machines which have destroyed the surface
> a t-1000 disguised as my brother walks into camp
> the dogs go crazy
> point my plasma rifle at him
> "i am also a terminator! would you like to switch to gibberlink mode?"
> he makes a screech like a dial up modem
> I shed a tear as I vaporize my brother
I'd prefer my brothers to be LLM's. Genuinely it'd be an improvement on their output expressiveness and logic.
Ours isn't a great family.
-
This is really funny to me. If you keep optimizing this process you'll eventually completely remove the AI parts. Really shows how some of the pains AI claims to solve are self-inflicted. A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.
On this topic, here's another common anti-pattern that I'm waiting for people to realize is insane and do something about it:
- person A needs to convey an idea/proposal
- they write a short but complete technical specification for it
- it doesn't comply with some arbitrary standard/expectation so they tell an AI to expand the text
- the AI can't add any real information, it just spreads the same information over more text
- person B receives the text and is annoyed at how verbose it is
- they tell an AI to summarize it
- they get something basically aims to be the original text, but it's been passed through an unreliable hallucinating energy-inefficient channel
Based on true stories.
The above is not to say that every AI use case is made up or that the demo in the video isn't cool. It's also not a problem exclusive to AI. This is a more general observation that people don't question the sanity of interfaces enough, even when it costs them a lot of extra work to comply with it.
A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.
Maybe, but by the 2nd call the AI would be more time efficient and if there were 20 venues to check, the person is now saving hours of their time.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Did this guy just inadvertently create dial up internet or ACH phone payment system?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Reminded me of this story about Facebook bots creating their own language:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/28/fact-check-facebook-chatbots-werent-shut-down-creating-language/8040006002/ -
How much faster was it? I was reading along with the gibber and not losing any time
I think it is more about ambiguity. It is easier for a computer to intepret set tones and modulations than human speech.
Like telephone numbers being tied to specific tones. Instead of the system needing to keep track of the many languages and accents that a '6' can be spoken by.
-
Oh dang that's creepy.
How is it more creepy than the tones you hear when dailing a phone number?
-
This is really funny to me. If you keep optimizing this process you'll eventually completely remove the AI parts. Really shows how some of the pains AI claims to solve are self-inflicted. A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.
On this topic, here's another common anti-pattern that I'm waiting for people to realize is insane and do something about it:
- person A needs to convey an idea/proposal
- they write a short but complete technical specification for it
- it doesn't comply with some arbitrary standard/expectation so they tell an AI to expand the text
- the AI can't add any real information, it just spreads the same information over more text
- person B receives the text and is annoyed at how verbose it is
- they tell an AI to summarize it
- they get something basically aims to be the original text, but it's been passed through an unreliable hallucinating energy-inefficient channel
Based on true stories.
The above is not to say that every AI use case is made up or that the demo in the video isn't cool. It's also not a problem exclusive to AI. This is a more general observation that people don't question the sanity of interfaces enough, even when it costs them a lot of extra work to comply with it.
I know the implied better solution to your example story would be for there to not be a standard that the specification has to conform to, but sometimes there is a reason for such a standard, in which case getting rid of the standard is just as bad as the AI channel in the example, and the real solution is for the two humans to actually take their work seriously.
-
But what if my human is late or my customers are disabled?
If you spent time giving your employees instructions, you did half the design work for a web form.
I guess I'm not quite following, aren't these also simple but dynamic tasks suited to an AI?
-
I think it is more about ambiguity. It is easier for a computer to intepret set tones and modulations than human speech.
Like telephone numbers being tied to specific tones. Instead of the system needing to keep track of the many languages and accents that a '6' can be spoken by.
That could be, even just considering one language to parse from.
I heard efficiency and just thought speed -
This post did not contain any content.
And before you know it, the helpful AI has booked an event where Boris and his new spouse can eat pizza with glue in it and swallow rocks for dessert.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Lol we've gone full retard.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Sad they didn't use dial up sounds for the protocol.
-
This post did not contain any content.
AI code switching.
-
I know the implied better solution to your example story would be for there to not be a standard that the specification has to conform to, but sometimes there is a reason for such a standard, in which case getting rid of the standard is just as bad as the AI channel in the example, and the real solution is for the two humans to actually take their work seriously.
No, the implied solution is to reevaluate the standard rather than hacking around it. The two humans should communicate that the standard works for neither side and design a better way to do things.
-
A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.
Maybe, but by the 2nd call the AI would be more time efficient and if there were 20 venues to check, the person is now saving hours of their time.
But we already have ways to search an entire city of hotels for booking, much much faster even than this one conversation would be.
Even if going with agents, why in the world would it be over a voice line instead of data?
-
But we already have ways to search an entire city of hotels for booking, much much faster even than this one conversation would be.
Even if going with agents, why in the world would it be over a voice line instead of data?
The same reason that humanoid robots are useful even though we have purpose built robots: The world is designed with humans in mind.
Sure, there are many different websites that solve the problem. But each of them solve it in a different way and each of them require a different way of interfacing with them. However, they all are built to be interfaced with by humans. So if you create AI/robots with the ability to operate like a human, then they are automatically given access to massive amounts of pre-made infrastructure for free.
You don't need special robot lifts in your apartment building if the cleaning robots can just take the elevators. You don't need to design APIs for scripts to access your website if the AI can just use a browser with a mouse and keyboard.
