My AI agents work great until someone asks something we didn't plan for. Keep adding rules, or rethink the whole approach?
Summary
A developer describes the challenge of building multi-agent AI assistants that fail to handle unexpected situations gracefully, relying on explicit rules that lead to a whack-a-mole problem instead of enabling autonomous reasoning about ambiguity.
Similar Articles
Anyone else feel like AI agents are amazing right up until things get complicated?
A reflection on the gap between impressive AI agent demos and dependable real-world execution, arguing that current agents excel at structured tasks but fail under unpredictable conditions, suggesting near-term AI roles will focus on narrow automation with human oversight.
Most AI agents fail because people build them like chatbots
Many AI agent implementations fail because they treat agents like chatbots, relying on chat history for state rather than using deterministic data structures. The article advocates for separating reasoning (LLM), actions (tools), workflow progress (state machine), and external triggers (webhooks) to build reliable business agents.
AI agents are getting better at doing things. What should they learn to do next?
A discussion on the evolution of AI agents from generating answers to completing multi-step tasks, and what capabilities they should develop next to handle complex real-world work.
Building AI agents gets weird once real users show up
An experienced developer reflects on the gap between AI agent demos and real-world performance, highlighting issues like poor documentation, naive permission expectations, and the misconception that probabilistic software becomes deterministic in production.
AI agents don’t just need better reasoning. They need better stopping rules.
AI agents need better stopping rules, not just reasoning, to be trustworthy in real workflows where incomplete data, irreversible actions, and high downside risk require knowing when not to act.