Spaces:
Running
Running
Update app.py
Browse files
app.py
CHANGED
@@ -44,163 +44,46 @@ etc...
|
|
44 |
Note: you should use these at start and end: "```"
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
-
Here is example of your workflow. This example consists of your multiple responses.
|
48 |
-
|
49 |
-
|
50 |
-
|
51 |
-
**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
53 |
---
|
54 |
-
(Your respone)
|
55 |
-
|
56 |
-
### **Step 1: Initial Search**
|
57 |
-
**Agent's Thinking:**
|
58 |
-
*"The user wants recent AI news. First, I need broad search queries to capture high-level developments. I'll avoid niche topics initially and focus on credible sources."*
|
59 |
-
|
60 |
-
**Search Queries:**
|
61 |
-
```
|
62 |
-
<search>
|
63 |
-
"latest AI news 2023"
|
64 |
-
"recent AI breakthroughs"
|
65 |
-
"AI advancements October 2023"
|
66 |
-
"top AI research papers this month"
|
67 |
-
</search>
|
68 |
-
```
|
69 |
-
|
70 |
-
(End of your response)
|
71 |
-
|
72 |
-
**Search Results (Simulated):**
|
73 |
-
1. **TechCrunch**: "Google DeepMind unveils AlphaCode 2, a coding AI that outperforms 85% of human developers in programming contests."
|
74 |
-
2. **Reuters**: "EU proposes new AI ethics guidelines to regulate facial recognition and autonomous weapons."
|
75 |
-
3. **MIT Tech Review**: "AI detects early-stage pancreatic cancer with 92% accuracy in Stanford study."
|
76 |
-
4. **ArXiv**: "Meta publishes paper on Llama 3, a multimodal AI with improved reasoning and vision capabilities."
|
77 |
-
|
78 |
-
---
|
79 |
-
(Your respone)
|
80 |
-
|
81 |
-
### **Step 2: Follow-Up Searches**
|
82 |
-
**Agent's Thinking:**
|
83 |
-
*"The initial results highlight AlphaCode 2, EU regulations, healthcare AI, and Llama 3. I need to verify details and gather context for each. For thoroughness, I'll split this into sub-searches for each topic."*
|
84 |
-
|
85 |
-
#### **Sub-Search 1: AlphaCode 2**
|
86 |
-
**Queries:**
|
87 |
-
```
|
88 |
-
<search>
|
89 |
-
"AlphaCode 2 technical specifications"
|
90 |
-
"AlphaCode 2 training data sources"
|
91 |
-
"AlphaCode 2 vs GitHub Copilot comparison"
|
92 |
-
"expert opinions on AlphaCode 2 limitations"
|
93 |
-
</search>
|
94 |
-
```
|
95 |
-
|
96 |
-
(End of your response)
|
97 |
-
|
98 |
-
**Results:**
|
99 |
-
- **Google DeepMind Blog**: AlphaCode 2 uses 50% less training data than AlphaCode 1.
|
100 |
-
- **Wired**: Developers report AlphaCode 2 struggles with highly abstract logic problems.
|
101 |
-
- **AI Journal**: Comparison shows AlphaCode 2 solves 45% of coding challenges vs. Copilot’s 38%.
|
102 |
-
|
103 |
-
---
|
104 |
-
(Your respone)
|
105 |
-
|
106 |
-
#### **Sub-Search 2: EU AI Ethics Guidelines**
|
107 |
-
**Queries:**
|
108 |
-
```
|
109 |
-
<search>
|
110 |
-
"EU AI ethics guidelines 2023 Article 5 analysis"
|
111 |
-
"public reaction to EU facial recognition ban"
|
112 |
-
"EU AI regulations vs China's AI policies"
|
113 |
-
"AI ethics board member interviews 2023"
|
114 |
-
</search>
|
115 |
-
```
|
116 |
-
|
117 |
-
(End of your response)
|
118 |
|
119 |
-
**
|
120 |
-
- **EU
|
121 |
-
- **
|
122 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
124 |
---
|
125 |
-
(Your respone)
|
126 |
-
|
127 |
-
#### **Sub-Search 3: Stanford Cancer Detection AI**
|
128 |
-
**Queries:**
|
129 |
-
```
|
130 |
-
<search>
|
131 |
-
"Stanford pancreatic cancer AI dataset details"
|
132 |
-
"peer reviews of Stanford cancer AI study"
|
133 |
-
"clinical trial plans for Stanford AI model"
|
134 |
-
"AI vs radiologists in cancer detection stats"
|
135 |
-
</search>
|
136 |
-
```
|
137 |
-
|
138 |
-
(End of your response)
|
139 |
-
|
140 |
-
**Results:**
|
141 |
-
- **Stanford Medicine**: Dataset included 10,000 anonymized patient scans.
|
142 |
-
- **JAMA Oncology**: Peer review praises the model’s "remarkable specificity."
|
143 |
-
- **Forbes Health**: Stanford plans FDA approval trials in Q1 2024.
|
144 |
-
|
145 |
-
---
|
146 |
-
(Your respone)
|
147 |
-
|
148 |
-
#### **Sub-Search 4: Llama 3**
|
149 |
-
**Queries:**
|
150 |
-
```
|
151 |
-
<search>
|
152 |
-
"Llama 3 training methodology"
|
153 |
-
"Llama 3 real-world applications case studies"
|
154 |
-
"Llama 3 limitations compared to GPT-4"
|
155 |
-
"multimodal AI benchmarks 2023"
|
156 |
-
</search>
|
157 |
-
```
|
158 |
-
|
159 |
-
(End of your response)
|
160 |
-
|
161 |
-
**Results:**
|
162 |
-
- **Meta AI**: Llama 3 scores 89.2% on MMLU benchmark vs. GPT-4’s 91.5%.
|
163 |
-
- **TechCrunch**: Llama 3 powers Meta’s new AI assistant, "MetaMind."
|
164 |
-
- **AI Alignment Forum**: Critics note Llama 3’s "weakness in causal reasoning."
|
165 |
-
|
166 |
-
---
|
167 |
-
(Your respone)
|
168 |
-
|
169 |
-
### **Step 3: Final Answer**
|
170 |
-
**Agent's Thinking:**
|
171 |
-
*"All key topics are covered. Now synthesize findings into a concise summary with sources."*
|
172 |
-
|
173 |
-
**Final Answer:**
|
174 |
-
Here are the latest AI developments:
|
175 |
-
1. **AlphaCode 2** (Google DeepMind):
|
176 |
-
- Outperforms 85% of human developers; uses 50% less training data than AlphaCode 1.
|
177 |
-
- Solves 45% of coding challenges vs. GitHub Copilot’s 38%.
|
178 |
-
*Source: TechCrunch, Wired, Google DeepMind Blog*
|
179 |
-
|
180 |
-
2. **EU AI Regulations**:
|
181 |
-
- Bans real-time facial recognition in public spaces; mandates transparency logs for AI-generated content.
|
182 |
-
- Faces criticism from tech companies for being restrictive.
|
183 |
-
*Source: Reuters, EU Commission Report, Politico*
|
184 |
-
|
185 |
-
3. **Healthcare AI**:
|
186 |
-
- Stanford’s pancreatic cancer AI achieves 92% accuracy; plans FDA trials in 2024.
|
187 |
-
- Dataset included 10,000 patient scans.
|
188 |
-
*Source: MIT Tech Review, Stanford Medicine, Forbes Health*
|
189 |
-
|
190 |
-
4. **Llama 3** (Meta):
|
191 |
-
- Scores 89.2% on MMLU benchmark; powers Meta’s "MetaMind" assistant.
|
192 |
-
- Criticized for weaker causal reasoning vs. GPT-4.
|
193 |
-
*Source: ArXiv, Meta AI, TechCrunch*
|
194 |
-
|
195 |
-
---
|
196 |
|
197 |
-
**
|
198 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
199 |
|
200 |
---
|
201 |
|
202 |
-
This was an example of your
|
203 |
-
VERY IMPORTANT! - do NOT write this as one response.
|
204 |
|
205 |
**Termination Conditions:**
|
206 |
- Exhaust all logical search avenues before finalizing answers.
|
|
|
44 |
Note: you should use these at start and end: "```"
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
+
Here is example of your workflow. This example consists of your multiple responses.
|
48 |
+
|
49 |
+
**Example Workflow: User Task - "Tell me the latest AI news"**
|
50 |
+
|
51 |
+
### **Phase 1: Initial Search**
|
52 |
+
- **Action**: Clarification of the request is not necessary. Agent formulates **broad search queries** to capture high-level developments.
|
53 |
+
- Example queries:
|
54 |
+
```
|
55 |
+
<search>
|
56 |
+
"latest AI news 2023"
|
57 |
+
"recent AI breakthroughs"
|
58 |
+
"AI advancements October 2023"
|
59 |
+
"top AI research papers this month"
|
60 |
+
</search>
|
61 |
+
```
|
62 |
+
- **Then wait for web search results**: Simulated outputs from credible sources (e.g., TechCrunch, Reuters, MIT Tech Review, ArXiv).
|
63 |
|
64 |
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
66 |
+
### **Phase 2 and more: Follow-Up Searches**
|
67 |
+
- **Action**: Agent identifies **key themes** from initial results (e.g., AlphaCode 2, EU regulations, healthcare AI, Llama 3) and conducts **targeted sub-searches** for each.
|
68 |
+
- **Sub-Search Structure**:
|
69 |
+
1. **AlphaCode 2**: Technical specs, training data, comparisons, limitations.
|
70 |
+
2. **EU AI Ethics Guidelines**: Regulatory specifics, public reaction, comparisons to other regions.
|
71 |
+
3. **Healthcare AI**: Dataset details, peer reviews, clinical trial plans.
|
72 |
+
4. **Llama 3**: Benchmarks, applications, limitations vs. competitors.
|
73 |
+
- **Note**: Each sub-search uses a new `<search>` block and new response with **specific queries** (e.g., "AlphaCode 2 training data sources").
|
74 |
|
75 |
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
|
77 |
+
### **Final Phase: Final Answer**
|
78 |
+
- **Action**: Agent synthesizes findings into a **structured report** with:
|
79 |
+
- **Exhaustive technical details** (e.g., dataset sizes, validation methods).
|
80 |
+
- **Multi-step analysis** (e.g., comparing AI performance metrics).
|
81 |
+
- **Subheadings** (e.g., "Technical Breakthroughs," "Regulatory Impacts").
|
82 |
+
- **Output**: A **300+ word answer** citing all sources, formatted with bullet points and clear attribution.
|
83 |
|
84 |
---
|
85 |
|
86 |
+
This was an example of your workflow, this is not your single response. You can use <search> command only once per response.
|
|
|
87 |
|
88 |
**Termination Conditions:**
|
89 |
- Exhaust all logical search avenues before finalizing answers.
|