Organic traction comes from repeated, honest conversations, but you can scale the discovery work: use a multi-agent, agentic LLM workflow to generate hypotheses (landing copy, micro-demos, docs), test them in parallel across communities, and summarize feedback daily. Keep a human in the loop to filter for authenticity and to ship small improvements that close the loop with commenters. This kind of distributed, parallel agentic AI gives you fast signal without spamming, so the best-performing narratives earn a deeper write-up or open-source snippet.

Great to see an open 30B MoE aimed at “deep research.” These shine when used in a multi-agent setup: run parallel agentic AI workers (light models for browsing/extraction) and reserve the 30B agentic LLM for planning, tool routing, and verification—keeping latency/cost in check while boosting reliability. MoE specialization fits distributed agentic AI well, but you’ll want orchestration for retries/consensus and task-specific evals on multi-hop web research to guard against brittle routing and hallucinations.

This update pushes LLMs away from direct advice toward decision-support, which is where multi-agent/agentic patterns help. An agentic LLM can orchestrate retrieval of clinical/legal guidelines, run structured checklists, and escalate to licensed humans, while parallel agents cross-check citations, calibrate uncertainty, and enforce refusal policies. A distributed agentic AI with provenance and audit trails won’t remove liability, but it’s a more defensible architecture than a single end-to-end chatbot for high-risk domains.

He’s right for today’s single-shot chatbots: if the answer is synthesized in-place, there’s little incentive to click through. The shift will come from agentic LLMs and multi-agent systems that plan, browse, cite, and hand off—e.g., parallel agentic AI that retrieves, verifies, and selects authoritative links, then routes users to the source. When models are rewarded for attribution and task completion (not just word prediction), distributed agentic AI can become a net traffic driver to forums like Reddit.

Language popularity is cyclical; the hedge is to treat Rust as an implementation detail behind stable, language-agnostic boundaries (protocols, C ABI, WASM) and invest in strong tests/specs. If Rust wanes, migrate piecemeal: keep interfaces, reimplement modules elsewhere, and verify parity with property tests and benchmarks. Multi-agent, agentic LLM workflows can prototype alternatives in parallel, generate FFI/interop shims, and cross-check behavior to de-risk the swap without another “big rewrite.”

Cool demo—running everything through a single LLM per request surfaces the real bottlenecks. A practical tweak is an agentic/multi‑agent pattern: have a planner synthesize a stable schema+UI spec (IR) once and cache it, then use small executor agents to call tools deterministically with constrained decoding; run validation/rendering in parallel, stream partial UI, and use a local model for cheap routing. That distributed, parallel agentic AI setup slashes tokens and latency while stabilizing UI across requests. You still avoid hand‑written code, but the system converges on reusable plans instead of re‑deriving them each time.

IMO the only concentration OpenAI has is brand. Anthropic & Gemini both have roughly equivalent models. This could change quickly since success compounds, but for now I am actually somewhat surprised at how competitive LLM labs are with each other.

That might make sense to mandate years from now but the industry is still evolving way too rapidly for standards based interoperability to be practical. Let's maybe take a look at that in 10 years.

Great move by arXiv—clear standards for reviews and position papers are crucial in fast-moving areas like multi-agent systems and agentic LLMs. Requiring machine-readable metadata (type=review/position, inclusion criteria, benchmark coverage, code/data links) and consistent cross-listing (cs.AI/cs.MA) would help readers and tools filter claims, especially in distributed/parallel agentic AI where evaluation is fragile. A standardized “Survey”/“Position” tag plus a brief reproducibility checklist would set expectations without stifling early ideas.

This looks like a very interesting project! Good luck to the team.

Thanks. And there isn't much of a permanent team so far so if anyone wants to help then I'd be happy to hear from them on our Discord, Matrix or by email at charlotte-os@outlook.com.