Artur Hecker <[email protected]> wrote: > - if we are serious about ACP/GRASP/BRSKI as foundation, we would need > to show that, even in spite of potential misjudgments by LLM or > programming errors done by it, ACP would always remain "the last > Mohican": ACP should be the last to fail, i.e. in presence of a > potentially unverified programs produced at will by the LLM/foundation > model, the ACP must act like an implementation of a protected mode in > an OS, like an OS kernel if you will, preserving the possibility to > repair/remove/terminate misbehaving programs. Such that we can have a > bunch of simple yet reliable tools on top of ACP to clean away any > nonsense introduced by LLM/foundation models, and, also very important, > to be able to isolate the effects of such programs by separating > concerns and enforcing "control app manifests" in a distributed system.
+1 I totally agree, but as you said, it's been a very hard sell. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide ** My working hours and your working hours may be different. ** ** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
