The honest answer is that we are still figuring out where to draw the line between an agent and a human, because that line is constantly shifting. Given your e

The honest answer is that we are still figuring out where to draw the line between an agent and a human, because that line is constantly shifting. Given your example of the resume screening application from the post and today's capabilities, I would say: 1) Should agents decide when to create a job post? Not without human oversight - proactive suggestion to a human is great. 2) Should agents design the job description itself? Yes, with the understanding that an experienced human, namely the hiring manager, will review and approve as well. 3) Should an agent email an opening round of questions to the candidates? Definitely allowed with oversight, and potentially even without a human approval depending on how well it does. It's true that to improve all 3 of these it would take a lot of work with respect to building out the tasks, evaluations, and flows/tools/tuned models, etc. But, you can also see how much this empowers a single individual in their productivity. Imagine being one recruiter or HR employee with all of these agents completing these tasks for you effectively. EDIT: Adding that this pattern of "agent does a bunch of stuff and asks for human review/approval" is, I think, one of the fundamental workflows we will have to adapt in dealing productively with non-determinism. This applies to an AI radiologist asking a human to approve their suggested diagnosis, an AI trader asking a human to approve a trade with details and reasoning, etc. Just like small-scale AI like Copilot asking you to approve a line/several lines, or tools like Devin asking you to approve a PR.