[prng2021]

The author gives this example of the problem and incorrect way to leverage AI:

"Sarah was relieved. She thought she could focus on high-value synthesis work. She’d take the agent’s output and refine it, add strategic insights, make it client-ready."

Then they propose a long winded solution which is essentially the same exact thing but uses the magical term "orchestrate" a few times to make it sound different.

[TaupeRanger]

Well, the article was written by AI, so I wouldn't expect it to make valid arguments through a long article like this.

[karmakurtisaani]

Already the headline is classic AI shitty writing. This isn't just x, it's basically the same thing y.

[dccoolgai]

In fairness to the author, I think their point was that you take _several_ agents (not just one) and find a way to have them work like a team of 20 people. In the example, Sarah is trying to do the same job she did before, just marginally better.

[prng2021]

Yea I guess that's accurate but they also explained that AI capabilities advance every 6-12 months and managing a team of agents buys you a few years. So their proposed solution and conclusion that it keeps you safe for years makes no sense right now. Multi agent orchestration, with an agent doing the orchestrating, is all the craze nowadays.

[FrustratedMonky]

I agree. But the article then seems to suggest, 'you be the one left standing to orchestrate'. It didn't offer much of a suggestion about the other 20 people that would be gone.

It seemed to come down to the old 'just work better , faster, cheaper' , but that is dialed up to 11 now.

[veggieroll]

> add strategic insights

This claim has always been BS in my experience.