3 ms·
> forking itself into as many sub-agents as are needed to fulfill the task The forking is free. Running the sub-agents is linear cost, but the expensive bit
by londons_explore 1y ago
> forking itself into as many sub-agents as are needed to fulfill the task
The forking is free. Running the sub-agents is linear cost, but the expensive bit is joining the agents responses back together again.
If a task has 6 subtasks and an agent is spawned for each, at some point some 'joiner' agent needs to parse and summarize the findings of the sub agents and feed it back to the parent. That step necessarily involves information loss, and uses more computation that a single linear agent design would not use.
- neom 1y agoI designed something for a business and found I needed 4 major sub-systems (like a real business) - insight/data, cognition, meta cognition and execution, and if you don't define all 4, the system is junk.
- motorest 1y ago> I designed something for a business and found I needed 4 major sub-systems (like a real business) - insight/data, cognition, meta cognition and execution, and if you don't define all 4, the system is junk. Might it be just another realization of Conway's law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law Might it be possible that the only reason you're assuming a system is junk is just that it doesn't resemble the systems you know and expect? There are so many ways to skin a cat, and certainly no business process represents the optimal process.
- neom 1y agoI thought about this for 15 hours. First, I really appreciate how you wrote this comment. It's an extremely well composed comment. I also appreciate your use of the word might. Anyway, I suspect you are probably correct, and I hit the wall again because: I'm just too versed.