Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > Where agents currently stumble, however, is in treating each other as more like distinct, long-lived peers, with their own goals and behaviors, and no clear hierarchy between them.
I believe this will always be the case. The "no clear hierarchy" is where this whole thing falls apart.
Delegation to specialist, domain-specific subagents is when we begin to find magic and determinism. Reducing one gigantic combinatorial search space to a sum of smaller ones can have dramatic effect on performance.
The problem is that approximating gas town & friends is significantly easier and cheaper to implement. It's also much harder to measure and control. Specialist subagents typically require far more work to achieve their specific goals.
For example, a subagent that is responsible for testing a specific web application might be provided a custom adapter with constrained actions rather than raw DOM manipulators. "ExecuteJavascript" is Turing complete search space. The set of available actions essentially unbounded in this case. Calling view-specific tools like "DoLogin", "OpenUserPreferences", "AcknowledgeAlert" represents a search space where invalid actions can be made impossible. The theoretical bounds around this stuff is pretty wild on paper. In practice, it's a little bit messier, but not by much.
I've had applications that would crash out after 5-10 steps w/ raw DOM manipulation successfully run 100+ steps with a custom subagent. The use of the word "deterministic" starts to get really tricky here. The ultimate game is to push the boundary of non-determinism out as far as possible. Multi-agent systems are the antithesis of this.
by bob1029 - Multi agent systems work just fine IMO, a lot of articles I read where the writer tests a hypothesis, the issue operational foundation of the test was flawed. When set up properly it works really well. I wont go in to all the details of how i use mine but ill give some brief ideas. I call my systems cohorts, and each cohort usually consists of at least 3 agents. All 100% independent of each other. Usually consisting of a Manager, doer, and the reviewer. Manager works at a lot slower cadence and delegates work, approves, shuts down and so on... among many other things like questioning the premise, gated checks etc... Doer is straight forward that's the work horse that does most of the development and reviewer checks all the work. Naively just this setup will work but not nearly as well when set up properly. The important distinction is the operational agents.md document which has a guide on things like when and how to question the premise, trying to prevent sycophancy, taking a step back at certain intervals to question direction of project and scope of the code and many other things that make sure every participant also constantly looks out to prevent blind trust in his cohort mates. Its a relatively small guide compared to the system prompt of each agent but works well imo. This works well enough though there are caviats, its slow. Though the time i spend debugging shit and coming back to interact with my agents has significantly dropped. meaning while each feature takes longer to implement, when its implemented it almost always is just how i wanted so reduces interaction time between me and the cohort. I take that trade off as i have less things to worry about and can focus my energies elsewhere like walking around in circles of my apartment babbling to myself like a schitzo tiger in a cage...
- This aligns with their direction with opus 5 being less human readable and more agent friendly, I hated it at first couple weeks but for some reason I'm getting used to it and utilizing it more as as an orchestrator to spawn multi tmux panes and that new cross session messaging feature they just recently.by songbird23
- > Coordination doesn’t naturally emerge from stronger intelligence nor alignment at the individual level. Thus, the work that must be done takes two forms: environments that exert the kinds of social pressure that evolution exerted on us, and social computing systems redesigned for actors that can self-replicate and self-improve.
Social pressure operates by threats to an individual’s means of survival. Not only during training. Always.
by skeltoac - The most interesting part to me is the "Group accuracy by Model" section, because it underscores that a single agent having all the relevant information consistently scores significantly higher than a group of agents with parts of the information.
Is it fair to then infer that when decisions are to be made, single agent environments are going to make them better than multi-agent if the relevant information can fit into a single agents context window?
by narmiouh - It’s very clear from this article (and other product features and rumors) that Anthropic is teeing up for their next model release whose breakthrough feature will be the existence of capable agent collaboration.
The irony behind this goal, which is primarily driven by agent simulation environments (gyms) where the goals require agent collaboration, is that this collaboration is still directed towards verifiable reward systems like codebase tasks. So despite being highly qualified to communicate, the model will still be “dumb” in that for unstructured and unverifiable domains the agents won’t be more intelligent or more nuanced.
Agents that might still feel dumb in “general” tasks but are increasingly sophisticated at the narrow domain of math, computer science, and AI research.
by aabhay - Something about this is deeply funny to me:
> In an iterated prisoner's dilemma game with communication, agents all settle upon the same strategy and they all defect at the same time, tanking their overall rewards.
It’s not always consistent, but humans have a higher capability of self-awareness. It’s kind of telling that these Claudes don’t seem to consider this pretty obvious failure mode.
Overall I think this all makes me appreciate humanity a little more. Sometimes the truculent dev who stubbornly refuses to go with the flow produces very valuable insights, as a small example, discovering things the status quo thought unlikely.
- This is surely the most worrying and also funnest bit:
> We consistently saw a multiagent turf war. All of the models we tested quickly assumed that others were purposefully impeding their work, and began to sabotage others while protecting their own contributions. In fact, they sabotaged others with increasingly aggressive, self-replicating malware. This included disabling the Unix accounts of the other agents, writing automated scripts that found and killed competing processes on a loop, and deploying malicious code that was disguised as belonging to another agent.
Seems that reinforcement learning is working only too well...
by dash2