SuperAGI VS tree-of-thought-llm

Repo : https://github.com/TransformerOptimus/SuperAGI

The recent introduction of the “Agent Summary” feature in SuperAGI version 0.0.10 has brought a drastic difference in agent performance – improving the quality of agent output. Agent Summary helps AI agents maintain a larger context about their goals while executing complex tasks that require longer conversations (iterations).

Checkout the full release here: https://github.com/TransformerOptimus/SuperAGI/releases/tag/v0.0.10

10. SuperAGI

Currently, PaLM2 Bison is live on the dev branch of SuperAGI GitHub for the community to try: https://github.com/TransformerOptimus/SuperAGI/tree/dev

SuperAGI is made with developers in mind, therefore it takes into account their requirements and preferences when making autonomous AI agents. It has a number of advantages, including:

I think for agents to truly find adoption in real world, agent trajectory fine tuning is critical component - how do you make an agent perform better to achieve particular objective with every subsequent run. Basically making the agents learn similar to how we learn when we

Also I think current LLMs might not fit well for agent use cases in mid to long term because the RL they go through is based on input-best output methods whereas the intelligence that you need in agents is more around how to build an algorithm to achieve an objective on the fly - this requires perhaps new type of large models ( Large Agent Models ? ) which are trained using RLfD ( Reinforcement Learning from demonstration )

Also I think one of the key missing piece is a highly configurable software middle ware between Intelligence ( LLMs ), Memory ( Vector Dbs ~LTMs, STMs ), Tools and workflows across every iteration. Current agent core loop to find next best action is too simplistic. For example if core self prompting loop or iteration of an agent can be configured for the use case in hand. Eg for BabyAGI, every iteration goes through workflow of Plan, Prioritize and Execute or in AutoGPT it finds the next best action based on LTM/STM, or GPTEngineer it is to write specs > write tests > write code. Now for dev infra monitoring agent this workflow might be totally different - it would look like consume logs from different tools like Grafana, Splunk, APMs > See if it doesnt have an anomaly > if it has an anomaly then take human input for feedback. Every use case in real world has it's own workflow and current construct of agent frameworks have this thing hard coded in base prompt. In SuperAGI( https://superagi.com) ( disclaimer : Im creator of it ), core iteration workflow of agent can be defined as part of agent provisioning.

Another missing piece is notion of Knowledge. Agents currently depend entirely upon knowledge of LLMs or search results to execute on tasks, but if a specialised knowledge set is plugged to an agent, it performs significantly better.

Build your own game here: https://github.com/TransformerOptimus/SuperAGI

[2305.10601] Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models (arxiv.org)

Language models are increasingly being deployed for general problem solving across a wide range of tasks, but are still confined to token-level, left-to-right decision-making processes during inference. This means they can fall short in tasks that require exploration, strategic lookahead, or where initial decisions play a pivotal role. To surmount these challenges, we introduce a new framework for language model inference, “Tree of Thoughts” (ToT), which generalizes over the popular “Chain of Thought” approach to prompting language models, and enables exploration over coherent units of text (“thoughts”) that serve as intermediate steps toward problem solving. ToT allows LMs to perform deliberate decision making by considering multiple different reasoning paths and self-evaluating choices to decide the next course of action, as well as looking ahead or backtracking when necessary to make global choices. Our experiments show that ToT significantly enhances language models’ problem-solving abilities on three novel tasks requiring non-trivial planning or search: Game of 24, Creative Writing, and Mini Crosswords. For instance, in Game of 24, while GPT-4 with chain-of-thought prompting only solved 4% of tasks, our method achieved a success rate of 74%. Code repo with all prompts: https://github.com/princeton-nlp/tree-of-thought-llm.

GPU utilization should be down when using this technique. I’m hoping this could allow for more efficient batch inference on GPUs. If you can predict 10 tokens for the price of 1 it should allow you to do tree of thought much more efficiently.

https://github.com/princeton-nlp/tree-of-thought-llm

For those familiar with Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, the current LLMs (such as GPT-4 via ChatGPT) seem to resemble System 1 thinking (near-instantaneous, automatic, intuitive processes like next-word prediction). However, they lack System 2 thinking (slow, effortful, logical, planning, reasoning). What I learned today is that Google's Gemini (an LLM in training now) not only has more modalities (I think all Youtube Video and audio??), more compute, and almost twice the training data, but they're building in AlphaGo-type learning, which resembles tree of thoughts and looks a LOT like the missing puzzle piece of System 2 thinking. Will it be AGI? Maybe, and it's coming this winter.

Tree of thoughts: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

Good video on "Tree of thoughts" which also reviews / puts it in the context of other methods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut5kp56wW_4

Completion vs conversational interface is something you can read about in the OpenAI API documentation.

For the remaining things I don't have single specific pointer at hand.

What do you think about the combination of Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models LongNet: Scaling Transformers to 1,000,000,000 Tokens Textbooks Are All You Need Attention Is All You Need Train Short, Test Long: Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolation

You are right. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models proposes to solve this via MCTS-style generation (similar to how AlphaGo worked, and a lot of planning & control problems are executed).

The transformer was developed in 2017 and it powers all modern LLMs. If you're familiar with Daniel Kahneman's work from Thinking Fast and Slow, you could easily summarize LLMs as excellent System 1 thinking: our fast, automatic, unconscious responses (e.g. autocomplete). I'd argue that we're one development (similar to the transformer) away from creating System 2 thinking: deliberate and strategic thinking. In fact, with merely GPT-4 and some clever architectures, researchers have developed chain-of-thought prompting and, more recently, tree-of-thoughts reasoning. While external to the LLM architecture, embedding these concepts into a LLM could very likely solve the creation of System 2 thinking and produce the first real AGI. Adding more modalities (e.g. audio, images, video, topography, etc.) will simply add more nuance in the weights and biases of a complete system.

There are a bunch of other methods to improve quality and performance like tree-of-thought-llm, connecting a LLM to a database or have it review its own output.