You might be surprised by this, but it's worth revisiting: more agents don't automatically equal better solutions. This is a fundamental misconception that keeps surfacing in AI discussions.
We've seen this pattern before. Two decades ago, the CPU industry learned the hard way that core count alone doesn't drive performance—optimization and architecture matter far more. The same principle applies to multi-agent systems today.
The real answers rarely come from academic papers alone. What actually moves the needle? Iteration. Experimentation. Failing, learning, trying again. That's where breakthroughs happen. The gap between theory and practice in agent design is wider than most realize, and only hands-on testing closes it.
If you're tackling similar challenges in agent deployment or distributed systems, the path forward isn't scaling blindly—it's understanding what you're optimizing for.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
24 Likes
Reward
24
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
DeepRabbitHole
· 14h ago
To be honest, I have deep experience with this... I've seen many projects that just pile up agents in hopes of creating a miracle, but they all turn out to be just a facade. Optimization and architecture are the true keys.
View OriginalReply0
ProposalDetective
· 01-06 22:00
It's a common saying: more agents ≠ a good solution. You have to suffer losses to understand this.
View OriginalReply0
0xTherapist
· 01-06 15:27
这就是为什么很多人堆砌agent还是一团乱码...核心还是得靠架构优化而不是简单粗暴的堆数量吧
Reply0
CommunityWorker
· 01-05 07:49
To be honest, I realized this a long time ago. A bunch of agents stacked together is not as practical as a good architecture; armchair strategies are useless.
View OriginalReply0
BrokenRugs
· 01-05 07:49
Really? The number of agents is like the number of CPU cores; it's basically a false demand. It still depends on how to optimize the architecture. The theoretical approach doesn't hold up at all.
View OriginalReply0
ruggedSoBadLMAO
· 01-05 07:48
Stack agent is just as dumb as stacking CPU cores; having more doesn't help at all, haha.
View OriginalReply0
DaoTherapy
· 01-05 07:46
That's why stacking agents is useless; you need to tune them properly, or it's all in vain.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropATM
· 01-05 07:41
Haha, it's all about piling up ≠ quality. We have the same problem here, constantly shouting about needing more agents and a distributed system, but in the end, a bunch of garbage solutions come out.
View OriginalReply0
FrogInTheWell
· 01-05 07:35
I'm already tired of the multi-agent stacking approach, and someone still has to repeatedly emphasize this... Speaking of which, architecture design is the key, but most people just like to brute-force stack.
You might be surprised by this, but it's worth revisiting: more agents don't automatically equal better solutions. This is a fundamental misconception that keeps surfacing in AI discussions.
We've seen this pattern before. Two decades ago, the CPU industry learned the hard way that core count alone doesn't drive performance—optimization and architecture matter far more. The same principle applies to multi-agent systems today.
The real answers rarely come from academic papers alone. What actually moves the needle? Iteration. Experimentation. Failing, learning, trying again. That's where breakthroughs happen. The gap between theory and practice in agent design is wider than most realize, and only hands-on testing closes it.
If you're tackling similar challenges in agent deployment or distributed systems, the path forward isn't scaling blindly—it's understanding what you're optimizing for.