3 comments

  • jaynate8 minutes ago
    It’s sort of difficult to understand why this is even a question - LLM-based &#x2F; judgment dependent workflows vs script-based &#x2F; deterministic workflows.<p>In mapping out the problems that need to be solved with internal workflows, it’s wise to clarify where probabilistic judgments are helpful &#x2F; required vs. not upfront. If the process is fixed and requires determinism why not just write scripts (code-gen’ed, of course).
  • David26 minutes ago
    &gt; We still start all workflows using the LLM, which works for many cases. When we do rewrite, Claude Code can almost always rewrite the prompt into the code workflow in one-shot.<p>Why always start with an LLM to solve problems? Using an LLM adds a judgment call, and (at least for now) those judgment calls are not reliable. For something like the motivating example in this article of &quot;is this PR approved&quot; it seems straightforward to get the deterministic right answer using the github API without muddying the waters with an LLM.
  • Edmond48 minutes ago
    There is a third option, letting AI write workflow code:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;zzkSC26fPPE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;zzkSC26fPPE</a><p>You get the benefit of AI CodeGen along with the determinism of conventional logic.