How does one achieve this?

How is this not obvious to everyone? It's like people forgot how to engineer.

Or maybe, just maybe, LLMs do not run deterministicly and that is ok?

In the real world almost nothing runs like that - only software and even that has a lot of failures.

So perhaps rather than trying to make agents run deterministicly the goal is to assume some failure rate and find compensation control around it.

I've said this before, but it's interesting to see momentum go back and forth between the flexibility and ease of everyday language, and the formal rigor of programming languages.

It feels like we are still discovering the optimal operating range on a spectrum between these two domains. Perhaps the optimal range will depend on the specific field in question.

this is just advocating for a harness, which has been the focus (along with evals) for at least the last three months by pretty much anyone working with agents professionally or seriously

agreed - this is what we’ve been trying to build at scale.

https://github.com/salesforce/agentscript

you know it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish and if it's possible to describe it with deterministic control flow

Isn’t this basically what Palantir does?

thats why agents completes a project with the first 3 prompts, , then maintaining and fine-tuning it take ages till hits "-Session token expired"