alt Hacker NewsIn the context compression approach, why aren't the agents labeled as subagents instead? The compressed context is basically a "subtask".
This is my main issue with all these agentic frameworks - they always conviniently forget that there is nothing "individual" about the thing they label "an agent" and draw a box around.
Such "on demand" agents, spawned directly from previos LLM output, are never in any way substantially different from dynamic context compression/filtering.
I think the only sensible framework is to think in terms of tools, with clear interfaces, and a single "agent" (single linear interaction chain) using those tools towards a goal. Such tools could be LLM-based or not. Forcing a distinction between a "function tool" and an "agent that does somethng" doesn't make sense.
Replies
Yeah, i agree with thinking of things as a single agent + tools.
From the perspective of the agent, whether the tools are deterministic functions, or agents themselves, is irrelevant.
I think the most common implementation of "subagents" doesn't get full context of a conversation, rather just an AI-generated command.
Here task is fullfilled with the full context so far, and then compressed. Might work better IMO.