Re: LLM Experiments, Part 1: Corrections

[Andrew Hyatt <ahyatt@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:49 AM Psionic K <psionik@positron.solutions>
wrote:

> >  I'm not sure how
> > the centralized storage reduces the coupling to the process. But
> > if I'm reading this correctly, it seems like an argument for using
> > state machines with the centralized storage acting as a driver for
> > state changes, which may be a good way to think about this.
>
> If you start by having a callback closure waiting on each individual
> request, you don't want these callbacks to perform reconciliation
> between one another.  It's too much logic in every callback.  A single
> handler should reconcile results and decide if the callback closure of
> that specific message is still valid to be called.
>
> For example, the user sends two requests, each with a logical
> timestamp (a counter).  The second one gets back first.  Should we
> even handle the first or throw it away?  Sometimes this can only be
> decided with knowledge of all the requests that I made.  Rather than
> make the callbacks smart, it's usually better to first try to
> reconcile what you receive with everything you sent.  You might need
> to wait for more output before sending the next input.  This would
> require the callback to know about past and future messages and what
> to do with them.  You want to decouple reconciliation with handling
> reconciled outputs.
>

That makes sense, but it isn't how things work today, where the requests
are independent.  I think they should stay that way, but in case they
don't, your suggestion seems like a good one, so thank you!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1928 bytes --]