[a_wild_dandan]

Their comment uses two (valid) context lengths: "organizational total" and "single agent." The latter is a subset of the former.

By analogy: no agent can summarize War and Peace, but several agents can, Peace-wise (sorry). Like AI map reduce. The question is thus "why not use one agent for this recursive merger?" Answers maybe being:

1. Different scholars (Russian lit. agents, ...war strategists?, etc) pay attention to different things with valuable insights

2. Multiple readers parallelize well, and some are faster than others

3. Managers can direct talent to (re)read chapters most relevant to their specialties, and coordinate meta-learning and communication

You might not get much mileage out of this approach with book summaries, but other domains are a different story (sorry).

[wokwokwok]

I’m not sure what this means.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Yes, multiple agents with different personas will give different takes and may lead to emergent behaviour, eg. discussing the book.

Yes, they could run in parallel.

No, any single multi agent step will not have any more context than any other single step.

If you believe that the Nth prompt in a chat to a LLM eternal multiple agents has “more context” than a chat between a single agent (and itself) you don’t understand how this works.

…or you are choosing to invent your own definition of “context”.