Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mary Kate Stimmler's avatar

Yes, you've articulated something I'm just starting to realize I suffer from too. Hope you figure it out and share with us.

Vitaly Meursault 🌹's avatar

We probably mean the same thing under the hood, but I don't think conversational style vs planning is an important distinction. That just tells the reader what form your interaction with AI takes. The important stuff is what objects is the interaction is focused on, and whether AI has a harness that spells out how to interact with the objects when they are mentioned. You can mention all the right objects in conversational style and miss them all entirely when writing a plan. An example of an important object is a checklist (along with ontology of objects whose states are updates across the checklist steps). If AI knows that objects are semi-formal (have clear state-space) and must be tracked explicitly, the style of communication is part of implementation (stuff that doesn't matter, so you can choose entirely based off vibes) rather than structure (the stuff that must be right no matter what implementation you choose). In other words, "plan" and "conversation/dialogue" are isomorphic as long as they share underlying structure.

12 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?