[bsenftner]

Yeah, it's really clear it's an engineer, what the software does is never even mentioned, the purposes and tasks that it performs: what are they? And how is hallucination managed? This reads to me like a complexity soup, where they just started without a clear idea of purpose or goal. Perhaps if the article mentioned what the software does, the purpose, it might be more clear. It sounds like a replacement for the entire management layer of a company...

[NeutralCrane]

Agreed. This could be a very intelligent implementation, or it could be an over-engineered mess. It certainly seems like overkill for my experiences with agents, but problem applications can vary wildly. It is impossible to tell how to evaluate these design choices without more concrete details.

[pcalcado]

This is good feedback; thanks both! Initially, this was a single article, and it started with an explanation of the system, but it was getting too long, so I decided to split it into three. In hindsight, I should have started with part II, where I wanted to talk about the features, but I thought that the most underserved part of the AI stack was the back-end architecture, so I tried to address it first.

[pixelsort]

Manager need to replace engineers with AI faster than engineers use AI to replace their managers. In the end, nobody wins except OpenAI.