kjhughes's comments

kjhughes | 5 months ago | on: Not Even Wrong: On the Limits of Prediction as Explanation in Cognitive Science

Abstract

  We offer a comment on the Centaur (Binz et al., 2025) transformer-based model of human behavior. In particular, Centaur was cast as a path towards unified theories of cognition. We offer a counter claim with supporting argument: Centaur is a path divergent from unified theories of cognition, one that moves towards a unified model of behavior sans cognition.

kjhughes | 7 months ago | on: Deep Agents

I thought they meant that it's a noop as a tool in the sense that it takes no external action. It seems nonetheless effective as a means of organizing reasoning and expressing status along the way.

kjhughes | 7 months ago | on: Deep Agents

If you have a valid criticism, express it. Otherwise, withdraw your unsubstantiated slight.

kjhughes | 9 months ago | on: Show HN: Ask-human-mcp – zero-config human-in-loop hatch to stop hallucinations

I'll try to give you credit for more than dismissing my question off-hand...

Yes, it may not need to know with perfect certainty when it's unsure or stuck, but even to meet a lower bar of usefulness, it'll need at least an approximate means of determining that its knowledge is inadequate. To purport to help with the hallucination problem requires no less.

To make the issue a bit more clear, here are some candidate components to a stuck() predicate:

- possibilities considered

- time taken

- tokens consumed/generated (vs expected? vs static limit? vs dynamic limit?)

If the unsure/stuck determination is defined via more qualitative prompting, what's the prompt? How well has it worked?

kjhughes | 9 months ago | on: AI in my plasma physics research didn’t go the way I expected

It got changed (for the worse, in my opinion) away from the original title.

The original title is supposed to be favored here unless it has a serious problem.

This original title had no serious problem, unless accurately summarizing a PhD candidate's thoughtful critique of some questionable AI contributions to scientific research is a serious problem.

page 1