Live data from Hacker News

LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

zacharyhuang.substack.com

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#61
There are two competing definitions of agents being used in industry.

https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-effective-age...

"- Workflows are systems where LLMs and tools are orchestrated through predefined code paths.

- Agents, on the other hand, are systems where LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage, maintaining control over how they accomplish tasks."

What Anthropic calls a "workflow" in the above definition is what most of the big enterprise software companies (Salesforce, ServiceNow, Workday, SAP, etc.) are building and calling AI Agents.

What Anthropic calls an "agent" in the above definition is what AI Researchers mean by the term. It's also something that mainly exists in their labs. Real world examples are fairly primitive right now, mainly stuff like Deep Research. That will change over time, but right now the hype far exceeds the reality.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reductionism is insightful when it comes to providing an implementation with those specific details in mind. In the case of LLMs knowing it does boil down to matrix multiplication is insightful and useful because now you know what kind of hardware is best suited to executing a model. What is actually not insightful or useful is believing LLMs are AGI or conscious.

Belief is generally not insightful or useful by definition. Then again, I don't think anyone who can follow this article believed that LLMs were conscious to begin with, so I'm not sure what your point is. You're preaching on behalf of a demographic that won't read this article to begin with, and presumably the people who are can see how useless, distracting, and unproductive this reductionism is.

The person I'm replying to literally has a startup targeted at making AGI coming from the LLM hype cycle.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belief is generally not insightful or useful by definition. Then again, I don't think anyone who can follow this article believed that LLMs were conscious to begin with, so I'm not sure what your point is. You're preaching on behalf of a demographic that won't read this article to begin with, and presumably the people who are can see how useless, distracting, and unproductive this reductionism is.

The person I'm replying to literally has a startup targeted at making AGI coming from the LLM hype cycle.

I believe this was precluded by the hedging of people who could follow the article. I have a difficult time imagining a person who can both understand how current LLMs work and still buy into Kurzweil.

Pursue the hypothesis? Sure. But belief is a different beast entirely. It's not even clear AGI is a meaningful concept yet, and I'd bet my life savings everyone reading this comment in 2025 will die before it's answered. Skepticism is the barometer.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#64

There are two competing definitions of agents being used in industry. https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-effective-age... "- Workflows are systems where LLMs and tools are orchestrated through predefined code paths. - Agents, on the other hand, are systems where LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage, maintaining control over how they accomplish tasks." What Anthropic calls a "workflow…

I think Anthropic's definition of workflows is inaccurate for modern definitions of the term. Temporal for instance (disclaimer, my employer) allows completely dynamic logic in agentic workflows to let the LLM choose what to do next. It can even be very dynamic (e.g. eval some code) though you may want it to operate on a limited set of "tools" you make available.

The problem with all of these AI specific workflow engines is they are not durable, so they are process local, suffer crashes, cannot resume, don't have good visibility or distribution, etc. They often only allow limited orchestration instead of code freedom, only one language, etc

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#65
post #7

I follow Mr. Huang, read/watch his content and also plan to use PocketFlow in some cases. A preamble, because I don't agree with this assessment. I think agents as nodes in a DAG workflow is _an_ implementation of an agentic system, but is not the systems I most often interact with (e.g. Cursor, Claude + MCP). Agentic systems can be simply the LLM + prompting + tools[1]. LLMs are more than capable (especially chain-o…

> Agentic systems can be simply the LLM + prompting + tools[1]. LLMs are more than capable (especially chain-of thought models) to breakdown problems into steps, analyze necessary tools to use and then executing the steps in sequence. All of this is done with the model in the driver seat. Sort of, kind of. It's still a directed graph. Dynamically generated graph, but still a graph. Your prompted LLM is the decision/d…

Kind of. This explanation feels pedantic—like calling my morning routine a dynamically generated graph (which it technically is). Others have pointed this out, but the industry seems split. Workflows like those described in the article resemble Airflow jobs, making them, well, workflows.

Corporate buzzwords have co-opted "Agent" to describe workflows with an LLM in the loop. While these can be represented as graphs, I'm not convinced "Agent" is the right term, even if they exhibit agentic behavior. The key distinction is that workflows define specific rules and processes, whereas a true agent wouldn’t rely on a predetermined graph—it would simply be given a task in natural language.

You're right that reasoning about runtime is difficult for true agents due to their non-deterministic nature, but different groups are chipping away at the problem.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#66
post #9

It is hard to put a pin on this one because there are so many thing wrong with this definition. There are agent frameworks that are not rebranded workflow tools too. I don't think this article helps explain anything except putting the intended audience in the same box of mind we were stuck since the invention of programming - i.e. it does not help. Forget about boxes and deterministic control and start thinking of er…

> There are agent frameworks that are not rebranded workflow tools too. To me "workflow" is just what agent means: the rules under which an automated action occurs. Without some central concept "agent" just a magic wand that does stuff that may or may not be what you want it to do. If we can't use state machines at all I'm just going to go out and say LLMs are a dead end. State machines are the bread and butter of re…

It’s getting pedantic, but the key idea is that Agents can solve problems traditional state machine-based workflows couldn't.

Your point is moot since many of these modern workflows already use LLMs as gating functions to determine the next steps.

It’s a different way of approaching problems, and while the future is uncertain, LLMs have moved beyond being just "cool software" to becoming genuinely useful in specific domains.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#67
post #2

Hey folks! I just posted a quick tutorial explaining how LLM agents (like OpenAI Agents, Pydantic AI, Manus AI, AutoGPT or PerplexityAI) are basically small graphs with loops and branches. For example: OpenAI Agents: for the workflow logic: https://github.com/openai/openai-agents-python/blob/48ff99bb... Pydantic Agents: organizes steps in a graph: https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-ai/blob/4c0f384a0626299... Langch…

This explanation and demo is super clear.

It would be interesting to dig deeper into the "thinking" part: how does an LLM know what it doesn't know / how to fight hallucinations in this context?

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are agent frameworks that are not rebranded workflow tools too. To me "workflow" is just what agent means: the rules under which an automated action occurs. Without some central concept "agent" just a magic wand that does stuff that may or may not be what you want it to do. If we can't use state machines at all I'm just going to go out and say LLMs are a dead end. State machines are the bread and butter of re…

It’s getting pedantic, but the key idea is that Agents can solve problems traditional state machine-based workflows couldn't. Your point is moot since many of these modern workflows already use LLMs as gating functions to determine the next steps. It’s a different way of approaching problems, and while the future is uncertain, LLMs have moved beyond being just "cool software" to becoming genuinely useful in specific…

Hmm, maybe you are referring to something specific with "workflow". I'm envision a visual graph with a ui for each node and connection, or maybe a makefile on the other end of the spectrum. What are you envisioning?

Anyway, LLMs will remain at "cool software" like other niche-specific patterns until I see something general emerge. You'd have to pitch LLMs pretty savvily to show it as a clear value-add. Engineers are extremely expensive, so LLMs need to have a very low error rate to be integrated into the revenue-path of a product to not incur higher costs or a lower-quality service. I still see text- and code-generation for immediate consumption by a human (or possible classification to be reviewed by a human) as the only viable uses cases today. It's just way too easy to manipulate them with standard english.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#69
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s getting pedantic, but the key idea is that Agents can solve problems traditional state machine-based workflows couldn't. Your point is moot since many of these modern workflows already use LLMs as gating functions to determine the next steps. It’s a different way of approaching problems, and while the future is uncertain, LLMs have moved beyond being just "cool software" to becoming genuinely useful in specific…

Hmm, maybe you are referring to something specific with "workflow". I'm envision a visual graph with a ui for each node and connection, or maybe a makefile on the other end of the spectrum. What are you envisioning? Anyway, LLMs will remain at "cool software" like other niche-specific patterns until I see something general emerge. You'd have to pitch LLMs pretty savvily to show it as a clear value-add. Engineers are…

> Hmm, maybe you are referring to something specific with "workflow". I'm envisioning a visual graph with a UI for each node and connection, or maybe a makefile on the other end of the spectrum. What are you envisioning?

In job orchestration systems, workflows are structured sequences of tasks that define how data moves and transforms over time. Workflows are typically defined as Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) but they don't have to be. I don't believe I am referring to anything more specific than how orchestration systems generally use them. LLM-based agents shift the focus from rigidly defined transitions to adaptable problem-solving mechanisms. They don’t replace state machines entirely but introduce a layer where strict determinism isn’t always necessary or even desirable.

> Anyway, LLMs will remain at "cool software" like other niche-specific patterns until I see something general emerge. You'd have to pitch LLMs pretty savvily to show it as a clear value-add. Engineers are extremely expensive, so LLMs need to have a very low error rate to be integrated into the revenue-path of a product to not incur higher costs or a lower-quality service. I still see text- and code-generation for immediate consumption by a human (or possible classification to be reviewed by a human) as the only viable uses cases today. It's just way too easy to manipulate them with standard English.

I get the skepticism, especially about error rates and reliability. But the “cool software” label underestimates where this is heading. There’s already evidence of LLMs being useful beyond text/code-gen (e.g., structured reasoning in research, RAG-enhanced search, or dynamically adapting workflows based on complex input). The real shift isn’t just about automation but about adaptive automation, where LLMs reduce the need for brittle, predefined paths.

Of course, the general-use case is still evolving, and I agree that direct, high-stakes automation remains a challenge. But dismissing LLM-driven agents as just niche tools ignores their growing role in augmenting traditional software paradigms.

Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies

#70

There are two competing definitions of agents being used in industry. https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-effective-age... "- Workflows are systems where LLMs and tools are orchestrated through predefined code paths. - Agents, on the other hand, are systems where LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage, maintaining control over how they accomplish tasks." What Anthropic calls a "workflow…

I think Anthropic's definition of workflows is inaccurate for modern definitions of the term. Temporal for instance (disclaimer, my employer) allows completely dynamic logic in agentic workflows to let the LLM choose what to do next. It can even be very dynamic (e.g. eval some code) though you may want it to operate on a limited set of "tools" you make available. The problem with all of these AI specific workflow eng…

"Workflow can be very dynamic" is a great summary!
Post reply on HN