Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
Re: LLM Agents Are Simply Graph – Tutorial for Dummies
#81In my opinion, the split is between the people who want their tools to be called Agents so they can make more on AI hype, and the people who know better than to call a simple pre-defined software workflow an “agent”. It is harder to get large investments for “my program just calls an LLM” these days.