alt Hacker NewsThey are confused in the word they use: the article on what Cursor is pushing does not, according to ^F, mention "swarm" at all. Since we have a word for multiple agents working on one task, it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right?
I bring it up not to be pedantic, but because if you think it implies multi-tasking and dismiss it, you are missing out on it's ability to help in single-tasking.
Replies
> I bring it up not to be pedantic
The OP is fundamentally expressing the opinion that single task threads are easier to keep track of.
Agree / disagree? Sure.
…but dipping into pedantry about terms (swarm, subagent, vine coding, agentic engineering) really doesn't add anything to the conversation does it?
You said:
> I think you misunderstand "swarms of agents", based on what you say above.
…but from reading the entire post I am pretty skeptical anyone was confused as to what they meant.
Wrong term? Don't care. If someone calls it a hallucination? Also don't care.
That cursor is focusing on “do stuff in parallel guys!”? Yeah, I care about that.
> it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right?
Not relevant to the thread. Also, I work with people who casually swap between using these exact words to mean both things.
I donnnt caarrrrre what people call it.
…when the meaning is obvious from the context, it doesnt matter.
I think cursor doesn't make distinction between single or multiple logical tasks for swarm-like workloads. Subagents is the word they use for the swarm workers.
Fwiw when I select multiple models for a prompt it just feeds the same prompt to them in parallel (isolated worktrees), this isn't the same as the swarm pattern in 2.4+ (default no worktrees).