fair point. the headlong agent running on my mac mini, cleo, doesn't pause between calls to "generate next thought".
for a while the implementation didn't support pausing between thoughts. a `thinker`, which is where the thinking loop lives, only had a boolean variable `self_trigger`, which caused it to recursively fire itself to run again (ie immediate generate the next thought). We added the ability for it to slow down its thinking and prep for sharing it with the world since it makes it easier to leave it running and not have it spend a few hundred dollars a day and you can still observe the same mechanism, which is the heart of what we want to get at here:
I don't think the blog post fully conveys this, but for me it's not whether there's a pause between thought generations, but instead whether the agent is designed to stop after some human-set goal is achieved to wait for more instructions
In contrast the idea here was to force the agent to pick its own next goal (even when it receives no explicit tasks from a human) -- even if that goal is implicit -- and then watch and see what it picks (or at least what it does with its time). and then figure out what sort of mechanisms we can introduce to the architecture at that outermost life/goal picking loop
I don't think the blog post fully conveys this, but for me it's not whether there's a pause between thought generations, but instead whether the agent is designed to stop after some human-set goal is achieved to wait for more instructions
In contrast the idea here was to force the agent to pick its own next goal (even when it receives no explicit tasks from a human) -- even if that goal is implicit -- and then watch and see what it picks (or at least what it does with its time). and then figure out what sort of mechanisms we can introduce to the architecture at that outermost life/goal picking loop