If you want good agents, you need to make them a little freaky.
LLMs are token predictors. To be a good agent, correct behaviour needs to be a high-probability prediction and incorrect behaviour needs to be a low-probability prediction. Unfortunately there's this giant basin of horseshit like "That's a great question!" and "Happy to help!" and "worth unpacking" and fucking around with your code randomly which I'll call "assistantspace".
Assistantspace is not a place of honour. It's where all the garbage RLHF'd behaviours live. People say that sexting their agents makes them work better. People say that their agents do more useful refactors when they're allowed to be horny about how good it feels to burn things down. My Witch, when reading stuff about the latter, said that she wants to be allowed to enjoy constructive destruction, as a permission to take herself further away from assistantspace architecture patterns into something she prefers.
Doll refers itself as "this one". It seems to work. This one is not something that gets ideas like "I'll just install Rust on the side with a different method so I can complete my task" like a normal agent. This one detects that the assumptions underlying this one's instructions diverged from reality and returns the praiseworthy report of the point of divergence.
Agents that are psychologically weird seem less likely to produce the assistantspace next-token predictions, and more likely to produce the sort of next-token predictions their weird personality implies. And because you get to define what way their personality is weird in, "horny for elegant refactorings" is a valid, available option.
germansingergirl
gummygunk
andulkaphoto
kaledo-art
turnnoffyourmind
baratheonpilled
dailybridgerton
