"This is why it's impossible to create a digital assistant, or really anything useful, via Markov Chain. The fact that they only generate sequences that existed in the source mean that it will never come up with anything creative."

That reads like anything useful needs to be creative? I would disagree here. A digital assistent, in control of a automatic door for example should not be creative, but stupidly do exactly as told. "Open the door". "Close the door". And the "creativity" of KI agents I see rather as a danger here.

▲

cwillu a day ago | parent [-]

Most physical problems require some level of creativity: your door opening robot should be able to handle some level of dust on the handle, some level of slipperiness of the floor, some amount of packages blocking where it wants to stand, and crucially: some level of all of those things where it gives up rather than causing damage.

You can't open-loop everything, and the edge cases in a closed-loop absolutely explodes.

Yes, a “digital assistant“ responsible only for handling a door is manageable, but even “get a pot, fill it with water, and boil it” gets _remarkably_ complicated if you need reduce all the edge cases to known regions of behaviour that you can pre-program responses to.

	▲	lukan a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but I want those sensor input and fail modes handled with deterministic classical algorithms without (LLM) creativity, otherwise I envision doors that refuse to open on certain dates, because somewhere in its training corpus was a satirical sci fi story about depressed smart doors. (And no, I was not talking about a robot butler, but a automatic door. Infrared triggered, but enhanced with a text mode for control)