Wrap a nested prompt with a tool call that is invoked by the caller prompt. That is the answer to all your suffering. You can repeat this for as many layers of invocation as you desire. You can layer determinism and non-determinism as much as you like in whatever orders you see fit with additional alignment, retry policies, logging, etc.
Agents running concurrently will not go any faster than one well-designed hierarchical agent system.
Imagine the simple task of incrementing a global counter. That would be my #1 benchmark. If you can demonstrate a MAS can increment that counter faster than a single agent can (monotonically without skipping), then I will happily delete 100% of the AI-related code I've authored and start over using your ideas.
I have never see a case where I need multi-agents talking to each others or something
With custom we don't have to disclose to the caller that the implementation of the tool is another LLM. Each piece of deterministic tool code can firewall the perspective of the model as appropriate.
Think of a sub agent as being isomorphic with a tool call.
I have seen much much worse examples on corporate blogs for example, where I question if authors even understand how to use any publishing system and how colors & info architecture works :-D
I don't care if you are having Claude write something for you, but I feel like I spent more time writing these two sentences than this person put into this post.
I'm reminded of a passage in Stephen Fry's "The Liar"[1], which draws the distinction between a book as an object of art, and a book as a vehicle for communication. If the message is worthwhile, I don't care if it was blurted out by a model or if blind monks inscribed it by hand into vellum parchment.
Don't get me wrong, there's certainly correlation - if I _know_ you've taken a lot of effort to write something, the chances are good that there is worthwhile content being communicated. But the correlation is _not_ perfect.
[0] when it comes to technical writing that intends to communicate information. Narrative writing that intends to evoke an emotion or viewpoint is a different story!
If an AI auto-outputs something with no sign of final check-off by a human, we don't even know if the intention of the human is to spam 100 different articles and delete 99 based on perceived success, or if the AI actually helped them translate something worth saying.
edit: One might argue that value and intention should be kept separate, but clear intention is also an indicator of value, and these days there are dozens of sources of material. It's very easy to "talk" at the void, and very difficult to figure out where to "listen". If an author doesn't try to make "listening" easier, then it puts the value they hold into question if they don't care about it enough themselves.
There's obviously no obligation to read someone else's shit, but there's no obligation to criticize it without context either. Why not criticize the content instead of the assumed methods?