It's difficult to have a conversation about 'agents' because it means something different to everyone. This article attempts to provide a loose framework, which

It's difficult to have a conversation about 'agents' because it means something different to everyone. This article attempts to provide a loose framework, which I mostly agree with, but just yesterday I was determining how we're handling orchestration that is fairly deterministic (one LLM checks the output of another LLM and returns a bool for if it's correct, and a category for any deviance) and they responded "oh, you mean an agent!", to which I rebutted "no, not really, but I don't know what to call it.. I guess a chain?". That being said, I have not found fully autonomous agents that define and delegate tasks to be useful for anything aside from entertainment or proofs of concept. I find them to be very brittle and to sometimes talk themselves out of a solution. I do believe it is a potential direction advancements may go in, but I disagree that it is a foregone conclusion and I think it relies on a core assumption that LLMs think and behave like humans, but that is not what I have seen. I am more than happy to be wrong on this, so if anyone has a counterpoint, please educate me.