跳至主要内容

2025-04-01-top

  • 精選方式: TOP
  • 時間範圍: DAY

討論重點​

以下是19篇文章的條列式重點總結，並附上對應的錨點連結與逐條細節說明：

1. 企業對AI代理的需求與痛點​

重點：

  1. 市場需求差異：新創偏好「即插即用」，大型企業重視「客製化整合」與數據安全。
  2. 熱門場景：內部（會議助理、程式碼審查）、客戶端（智能客服、銷售自動化）。
  3. 採購動機：解決人力繁瑣、知識孤島、高成本等痛點。
  4. 客戶偏好：整合性、ROI明確、試用後擴展的採購模式。

2. Cloudflare Agents SDK遷移效益​

重點：

  1. 效能提升：延遲降低70%，響應速度媲美GPT-4o。
  2. 架構簡化：取代5,000行自定義代碼，SQL結構更簡潔。
  3. 開發體驗：動態提示功能、程式設計師友好設計。

3. MCP規範的授權機制探討​

重點：

  1. 授權功能：解決工具整合難題，但需更根本的互動機制改革。
  2. API局限性：現有API僵化，未來需自描述、目標導向的設計。

4. 客服AI代理的開發框架​

重點：

  1. 技術選擇：RAG vs. CAG、工具調用、記憶管理。
  2. 實務挑戰：對話流設計、合規性、模組化開發。
  3. 部署策略：雲端/本地權衡，監控工具（如LangSmith）。

5. AI對人際信任的影響​

重點：

  1. 界線模糊：人機內容難辨，資訊價值優先於來源。
  2. 驗證本質：需反思傳統「以來源判斷可信度」的慣性。

6. B2B客戶開發工具推薦​

重點：

  1. 需求：查找潛在客戶郵件、偵測公司技術堆棧。
  2. 目標：自動化B2B推廣流程。

7. 後端開發者轉型AI的資源​

重點：

  1. 學習需求：LLM/ML基礎、實用課程與工具推薦。
  2. 職涯規劃：從後端過渡至AI開發的短期與長期策略。

8. 低代碼網站監控代理​

重點：

  1. 功能需求：監控網頁變化、觸發條件動作（如點擊按鈕）。
  2. 工具方向：Distill.io、Zapier或RPA方案。

9. AI智商評估的商業潛力​

重點：

  1. 核心概念：透過文件分析量化人類/AI智商。
  2. 應用場景：法律、金融等知識服務的競爭優勢。

10. 大型JSON編輯的AI工具困境​

重點：

  1. 工具缺陷：ChatGPT分割文本、Grok記憶力差。
  2. 替代方案：需穩定處理法律資料的本地或專業工具。

11. AI代理的定義爭議​

重點：

  1. 關鍵特徵：主動性、目標驅動、長期記憶。
  2. LLM限制：被動反應 vs. 真正代理的自主性。

12. 定制化AI代理的自由工作需求​

文章核心重點​

以下是各篇文章的一句話摘要（條列式輸出）：

  1. I Spoke to 100 Companies Hiring AI Agents...：企業需要能無縫整合現有系統、解決具體問題且快速見效的AI代理，重視整合性、客製化彈性與ROI。
  2. We switched to cloudflare agents SDK...：團隊改用Cloudflare Agents SDK後顯著降低延遲並簡化架構，提升AI代理效能與開發效率。
  3. Thoughts on latest version of MCP spec with auth?：探討MCP規範新增授權機制如何改進代理與工具的互動，以釋放代理潛力。
  4. How Would You Prepare for & Build the Basic Customer Support Agent?：提供開發AI客服代理的系統化框架，涵蓋需求釐清、技術選型到部署策略。
  5. Is AI making us unable to trust each other?：討論AI生成內容模糊人機界線後，應重新定義資訊信任標準，聚焦內容價值而非來源。
  6. Best Tools for Email & Tech Stack Discovery：尋求自動化B2B客戶開發工具建議，包括查找電子郵件與偵測公司技術堆棧。
  7. I got a job as a back-end developer in a team developing AI Agents...：新任後端開發者尋求轉型AI/ML領域的學習資源與短期備戰指南。
  8. Basic AI agent?：探討如何用低代碼工具創建監控網站變化的自動化代理，觸發條件後執行操作。
  9. An AI app that accurately estimates a human's and an AI's IQ...：提出AI評估文件作者智商（人類或AI）的商業潛力，顛覆知識服務選擇標準。
  10. What is the best A.I./ChatBot to edit large JSON code?：比較主流AI工具處理大型JSON的缺陷，尋求能穩定編輯與維護法律案件資料的方案。
  11. What’s your definition of „AI agent”?：辨析LLM與AI代理的關鍵差異，後者需具備主動性、目標導向與長期記憶等特徵。
  12. Does anyone freelance?：徵求自由工作者開發定制化AI代理，實現文本檢索、翻譯、圖像識別等複合功能。
  13. Do you develop your own models for your agents?：未提供具體內容，可能為投票或討論AI代理模型開發策略。
  14. AI agents for handling toil：探討AI代理如何自動化複雜系統運維，解決非結構化問題並減輕團隊負擔。
  15. Useful platforms for implementing a network of lots of configurations.：尋求管理上千專用AI代理的技術方案，平衡規模化配置與使用者體驗。
  16. Bluesky Agent：構建具古怪個性的AI代理自動生成社交貼文，以提升活躍度與追隨者數。
  17. Ever heard of Decagon AI?：討論專注客戶支援的AI新創職位前景與市場可持續性。
  18. Original painting to video：分析AI工具無法將原創畫作轉視頻的技術限制，可能因缺乏對獨特圖像的適應性。
  19. Help me choose between Semantic Kernel and OpenAI Agents SDK...：比較兩框架在多步驟AI管線的適用性，權衡模組化、靈活性與執行效率。

目錄​

1. I Spoke to 100 Companies Hiring AI Agents — Here’s What They Actually Want (and What They Hate)​

這篇文章的核心討論主題可以總結為以下幾點：

  1. 市場需求與客戶類型：

    • 不同類型企業（如新創、代理商、中小企業與大型企業）對AI代理的需求差異，包括「即插即用」、「客製化整合」或「數據安全」等重點。

  2. 熱門應用場景：

    • 內部用途：會議助理、流程自動化、程式碼審查、內部知識庫支援等。
    • 客戶端用途：智能客服、銷售線索開發、客戶維繫、端到端流程自動化。

  3. 企業採購AI代理的動機：

    • 解決痛點如「人力作業繁瑣」、「難以擴展」、「知識孤島」、「高支援成本」及「業務效率低下」。

  4. 客戶真實需求與偏好：

    • 重視整合性（現有工具鏈）、客製化彈性、安全性、快速部署及明確的投資回報（ROI）。
    • 額外加分功能：例如與Slack/Notion整合、操作直覺但穩定可靠。

  5. 採購行為模式：

    • 傾向從小規模試用（免費或固定範圍專案）開始，驗證價值後快速擴展。
    • 偏好「按使用量計費」或分級定價，而非按人頭計費。

總結：
企業並非追求通用人工智慧（AGI），而是需要能無縫整合現有系統、解決具體問題且能快速見效的AI代理，核心目標是「節省成本」與「提升效率」。文章從市場洞察到實際執行層面，提供了供需雙方的關鍵匹配點。

內容​

I run a platform where companies hire devs to build AI agents. This is anything from quick projects to complete agent teams. I've spoken to over 100 company founders, CEOs and product managers wanting to implement AI agents, here's what I think they're actually looking for:

Who’s Hiring AI Agents?

  • Startups & Scaleups → Lean teams, aggressive goals. Want plug-and-play agents with fast ROI.

  • Agencies → Automate internal ops and resell agents to clients. Customization is key.

  • SMBs & Enterprises → Focused on legacy integration, reliability, and data security.

Most In-Demand Use Cases

Internal agents:

  • AI assistants for meetings, email, reports

  • Workflow automators (HR, ops, IT)

  • Code reviewers / dev copilots

  • Internal support agents over Notion/Confluence

Customer-facing agents:

  • Smart support bots (Zendesk, Intercom, etc.)

  • Lead gen and SDR assistants

  • Client onboarding + retention

  • End-to-end agents doing full workflows

Why They’re Buying

The recurring pain points:

  • Too much manual work

  • Can’t scale without hiring

  • Knowledge trapped in systems and people’s heads

  • Support costs are killing margins

  • Reps spending more time in CRMs than closing deals

What They Actually Want

|✅ Need|💡 Why It Matters|

|:-|:-|

|Integrations|CRM, calendar, docs, helpdesk, Slack, you name it|

|Customization|Prompting, workflows, UI, model selection|

|Security|RBAC, logging, GDPR compliance, on-prem options|

|Fast Setup|They hate long onboarding. Pilot in a week or it’s dead.|

|ROI|Agents that save time, make money, or cut headcount costs|

Bonus points if it:

  • Talks to Slack

  • Syncs with Notion/Drive

  • Feels like magic but works like plumbing

Buying Behaviour

  • Start small → Free pilot or fixed-scope project

  • Scale fast → Once it proves value, they want more agents

  • Hate per-seat pricing → Prefer usage-based or clear tiers

TLDR; Companies don’t need AGI. They need automated interns that don’t break stuff and actually integrate with their stack. If your agent can save them time and money today, you’re in business.

Hope this helps.

討論​

評論 1:

pretty descent break-down. I might respond in detail with more of my own findings, but based on what u/OP u/Humanless_ai wrote:
Many of these items, such as RBAC , Customization and so on, can't be had via the no or low code platforms. Wrapping advanced model selections and so on? People that try to sell AI solutions based on Make and Zapier, or even things such as N8n/flowwise and python based alternatives without the leg work such as the frame work wrapped around it. And guess what? They licensing terms make that extremely hard.
My finding led me to build my own framework that does all of what OP have posted as paint points.
I believe that the day of the no-code/low code selling is over. If you want a company to buy, then this post is an eye opener. IF you cant cater to your clients and have no idea how to even engineer it: don't even try.
Sorry to be harsh, but yes, OP is correct - doing AI agents the right way is harder and more elaboarte than what people believe.

評論 2:

curious if companies are actually expecting these agents to run fully on their own, or if they still want humans in the loop somewhere? feels like most people still don’t fully trust the automation yet.

評論 3:

Thanks for valuable info 🙏

評論 4:

Who were the 100 companies, what were the people’s roles you spoke with, and what questions did you ask?

評論 5:

It’s a great review. Thank you for sharing. That’s rare these days.

My impression looking at the list is they’re still thinking Agents Level 1 and we’re kind of on to Level 2. I think if you focus beyond what they’re telling you you’ll have a whole lot less competition and be out ahead of the curve. What you need to do is think like Jobs. Sell them what they need not what they want. The problem is this is really hard.

Again thank you for sharing your research.

2. We switched to cloudflare agents SDK and feel the AGI​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：作者團隊從AWS基礎架構遷移至Cloudflare Agents SDK後，在AI代理效能和開發體驗上獲得的顯著改善。具體聚焦以下面向：

  1. 效能躍升

    • 關鍵數據：端到端延遲降低70%，Claude Sonnet 3.7的響應速度媲美原GPT-4o表現
    • 使用者體驗：近乎即時的反應讓AI顯得更智能，直接提升用戶參與度

  2. 架構簡化

    • 內建排程系統取代5,000行自定義代碼
    • SQL結構簡化，擺脫DynamoDB的複雜性
    • 代碼庫縮小且更易維護

  3. 新功能潛力

    • 動態客戶化系統提示（system prompt）的可行性
    • 應用場景：支撐創業公司的AI員工（處理行銷、銷售與Meta廣告業務）

  4. 開發者體驗

    • 強調「對程式設計師友好」的設計（vibe coder friendly）
    • 呼籲社群分享遷移經驗，形成技術討論

本質上是一個基礎架構遷移的成功案例分享，突出Cloudflare方案在延遲優化、系統簡化和擴展性方面的優勢，並暗示對中小型AI應用的適用性。

內容​

After struggling for months with our AWS-based agent infrastructure, we finally made the leap to Cloudflare Agents SDK last month. The results have been AMAZING and I wanted to share our experience with fellow builders.

The "Holy $%&@" moment: Claude Sonnet 3.7 post migration is as snappy as using GPT-4o on our old infra. We're seeing ~70% reduction in end-to-end latency.

Four noticble improvements:

  1. Dramatically lower response latency - Our agents now respond in nearly real-time, making the AI feel genuinely intelligent. The psychological impact on latency on user engagement and overall been huge.

  2. Built-in scheduling that actually works - We literally cut 5,000 lines of code from a custom scheduling system to using Cloudflare Workers in built one. Simpler and less code to write / manage.

  3. Simple SQL structure = vibe coder friendly - Their database is refreshingly straightforward SQL. No more wrangling DynamoDB and cursor's quality is better on a smaller code based with less files (no more DB schema complexity)

  4. Per-customer system prompt customization - The architecture makes it easy to dynamically rewrite system prompts for each customer, we are at idea stage here but can see it's feasible.

PS: we're using this new infrastructure to power our startup's AI employees that automate Marketing, Sales and running your Meta Ads

Anyone else made the switch?

討論​

評論 1:

Please don't call scripts employees. Just a suggestion. :)

評論 2:

Did you get paid by Cloudflare for this post?

評論 3:

I just do the domains DNS through it... What am i missing. I run a small home page business 😅

評論 4:

The agents SDK and Durable Objects in general are awesome. I really like the full-stack experience of agents with useAgent.

My biggest gripe – it's vendor-locked to Cloudflare. I've been working on a project called ActorCore that provides a similar experience but on both Cloudflare DO any place you can run Node.js (GitHub). If you have a sec, I'd love to hear how your experience with agents compares to ActorCore.

評論 5:

intresting can you share more info on what specific product of cloudfare are you using?
hosting llm locally ?
can you share more technical context please ? thank!

3. Thoughts on latest version of MCP spec with auth?​

這篇文章的核心討論主題可以總結為以下幾點：

  1. MCP 規範中新增的授權（auth）功能
    作者肯定最新版 MCP 規範加入授權機制的重要性，並提到過去整合授權與代理（agents）的困難，尤其是隨著工具數量增加所帶來的挑戰。

  2. 對工具/軟體使用方式的重新思考
    作者認為這只是開始，未來可能需要更根本地重新思考代理如何與工具或軟體互動。若 MCP 授權與 MCP 註冊機制（registries）成為主流，將有助於解決工具和 API 的可發現性（discoverability）問題。

  3. 現有 API 與工具的局限性
    目前代理使用的 API 大多是為非代理場景設計的，其僵化性限制了代理的潛力。作者主張未來需要更靈活、自描述（self-describing）且以目標為導向（goal-oriented）的互動機制。

  4. 尋求最佳實踐與案例
    作者詢問是否有相關的成功案例，並分享自己的觀點（附上連結），邀請讀者參與討論。

整體而言，文章聚焦於 「如何改進代理與工具/API 的互動機制，以充分釋放代理的潛力」，並探討 MCP 規範的進展在此過程中的角色。

內容​

It was great to see that auth was included in the latest version of the MCP spec (released last week). Up to now, it’s definitely been a bit of a pain to integrate auth with agents (especially as the number of available tools increases!). Has anyone tried working with it? How have you found it?

Personally, I think it’s the beginnings of a bigger re-think on how agents use tools / software. If/when MCP auth + MCP registries become fully mainstream, that’ll solve the issue around discoverability of tools / APIs. However, I also think the APIs and tools themselves will then need to change. At the moment, agents generally use APIs that pre-existed agents and their rigidity gets in the way. To fully unlock agents, I think we need flexible, self-describing and goal-oriented mechanisms for agents to interact with software. Has anyone seen any particularly good examples of this?

I’ve written some thoughts up on this if anyone’s interested (link in comments) - let me know what you think!

討論​

評論 1:

Now every MCP server needs to implement its own oauth on top of the existing oauth or whatever other authentication is required by the underlaying API.

This is an insane level of complications and abstraction. There are already APIs and those APIs already support authentication and in most case they are described cleanly in OpenAPI specs.

Am I the only one looking at MCP and thinking that the whole thing was badly designed from the get go. For every API now you need at least one MCP server - maybe more, exponentially increasing the number of things that need to be maintained.

My prediction is that someone will create a general purpose MCP server that acts like a proxy to any other API (you totally can) and the whole thing will collapse on itself.

評論 2:

Link with thoughts: https://blog.portialabs.ai/beyond%20apis
Latest MCP spec update: https://spec.modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-03-26/changelog/

評論 3:

it's critical for even thinking about putting something like this into production

4. How Would You Prepare for & Build the Basic Customer Support Agent?​

核心討論主題總結：​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是「如何系統化地開發與部署一個簡單的AI客服代理（Agent）」，並聚焦於以下實務面向的決策與經驗分享：

  1. 需求釐清與客戶溝通

    • 如何向客戶索取必要資訊（模板/檢查清單）以明確需求範圍（如支援渠道、功能邊界、數據來源等）。

  2. 代理的技術架構選擇

    • 代理類型：是否採用RAG（檢索增強生成）、CAG（對話行為控制）、工具調用（Tools）、數據庫整合（DB）、記憶管理（Memory）等技術組合。
    • 複雜度權衡：根據場景決定流程的深度（如是否需多步驟推理或簡單問答）。

  3. 開發工具與框架

    • 工具選擇：比較無代碼平台、LangChain、CrewAI等框架的適用性，或混合使用Pydantic等程式化方案。

  4. 監控與評估機制

    • 監控工具：LangSmith、Langfuse、Helicone等方案的實際應用與效能追蹤。
    • 評估指標：如何定義代理的成功標準（如回應準確率、用戶滿意度）。

  5. 部署策略

    • 環境選擇：雲端（如AWS/Azure）、本地部署或混合架構的利弊分析，考量成本、延遲與擴展性。

  6. 實戰經驗與陷阱提醒

    • 常見挑戰：如對話流設計的邊界條件、數據隱私合規性、渠道API限制等。
    • 效率技巧：模組化開發、快速迭代測試、用戶反饋迴圈設計。

關鍵目標：​

提供一個結構化的決策框架，幫助開發者在實際企業場景（如XYZ公司的跨渠道客服代理）中，從零到一落地AI代理系統，並避免重複踩坑。

內容​

Have you found the perfect process/platform/approach for developing & deploying a simple agent?

Your experiences will make this a useful resource for anyone developing an AI agent or Agentic system.

Scenario:

You are tasked to develop a customer support agent for the tech company XYZ.

It handles general inquiries, prices & products questions, complaints, feedback, etc., via Whatsapp and Social Media channels.

The complexity of the agent/flow is up to you.

Now what?

  • What do you request from yout client (do you have a template/checklist/etc.)?

  • What type of agent do you build (RAG, CAG, Tools, DB, Memory,etc.)

  • How do you build it (no-code, LangChain, PydanticAI, CrewAI, other)?

  • How do you monitor and eval (Langsmith, Langfuse, Helicone, other)?

  • Where do you deploy it (cloud/local/hybrid)?

  • Any additional insights, tools, red flags, or tips and tricks you learned from your experience building agents for the real world?

討論​

評論 1:

I've found that low latency is a huge factor when it comes to these agents. Having the chatbot responding to users with virtually no lag improves the user experience.

My current go-to process is sending the client a checklist with details about their business and examples of inquiries. I ask them to includes as many Q&As as possible.

If it's a simple chatbot (no tools), I'm using CrewAI. If it's a more complicated automation flow I use LangChain+ LangGraph + LangSmith

Most are deployed on the cloud and it's aws for me.

5. Is AI making us unable to trust each other?​

這篇文章的核心討論主題圍繞以下幾個關鍵問題：

  1. 人類與AI生成內容的界線模糊化：
    作者指出，網路上的「深思熟慮且結構化」的回應常被誤認為AI生成，甚至連人類自身也難以區分，反映當前內容創作中「人機難辨」的現象。

  2. 資訊價值的優先性爭議：
    探討「內容是否為AI生成」是否真比「資訊本身是否有價值」更重要，質疑傳統對「來源可信度」的執著是否仍適用於AI時代。

  3. 驗證資訊的本質未變：
    強調人類始終需對資訊進行驗證（無論來源是人或AI），暗示當前挑戰並非全新問題，而是既有行為模式的延續與強化。

  4. 實用主義與來源焦慮的衝突：
    引發對「效率」與「可信度」權衡的反思——當AI能快速提供有價值的線索時，是否應更關注內容效用，而非過度糾結來源？

總結而言，文章核心在於批判性思考「AI生成內容普及後，我們應如何重新定義資訊信任的標準」，並挑戰讀者反思傳統「以來源判斷內容」的慣性思維。

內容​

I've noticed something lately - whenever you write a thoughtful, well-formatted response online, people often assume it's AI-generated content. And honestly, it's becoming harder to tell the difference ourselves.

But for those seeking answers or engaging in discussions, does it really matter if content is AI-generated as long as the information is valuable? Sometimes we get direct answers, sometimes just hints that require further verification and testing. We've always had to spend time verifying information, extracting value, and making attempts that occasionally waste our time.

So what's really different now? How do you see this issue? Is the source more important than the content itself?

討論​

評論 1:

I could give you a well reasoned AI generated response. How would you feel? You asked this on reddit where you expected someone to care enough to answer. Next time just talk to chatGPT if it makes no difference to you?

I’m not trying to be unfriendly, more point out that if I wanted an AI response I would not be here talking to all of you. I’d feel cheated.

評論 2:

The problem is that people think only because its formatted by AI the human had nothing to do with it. Which is just not true. Every single email by me is formatted by AI but the content is obviously by me, but because my grammar etc is dogshit(as you can see in this message) I always let the AI clean things up for me.

評論 3:

What's your ulterior motive?

評論 4:

People who point out that my writing is worse don't realize it.
It's easy enough to write as if I'm not an AI, but I don't want to put in that much effort.

評論 5:

there's a lot of formatting that looks ai generated, sometimes you'll see it in this sub too

it's the too many emojis, a bunch of randomly placed titles, all that random bullshit

6. Best Tools for Email & Tech Stack Discovery​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：尋求關於B2B客戶開發自動化工具的建議，具體聚焦在以下兩個問題：

  1. 如何根據已知潛在客戶姓名查找電子郵件地址（工具或技術節點推薦）。
  2. 如何偵測目標公司的技術堆棧（Tech Stack）（工具或技術節點推薦）。

作者希望透過社群協力解決自動化開發中的實際障礙，提升B2B推廣流程的效率。

內容​

Hey everyone! 👋

I’m building a B2B outreach automation and I’ve hit a couple of roadblocks. Would love your input on these:

  1. If you already have a prospect’s name, what’s the best tool or node you use to find their email?

  2. Before reaching out, I want to see what kind of tech stack the company is using. Any tool or node you'd recommend for that?

Thanks a ton in advance 🙏

討論​

評論 1:

LinkedIn for emails and profiles.

評論 2:

Apollo or Muraena are pretty foot to get emails and contact info.

評論 3:

You can check 'Global Database' and its options. Global Database also provides insights into a business’s operations, which may include tech-related details. For deeper tech insights, you might want to pair it with tools like BuiltWith or Wappalyzer.

7. I got a job as a back-end developer in a team developing AI Agents/Chat & Voice Bots. Please suggest me some resources to prepare for this role and tasks.​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：
一位新任後端開發者尋求轉型至AI/ML領域的學習路線與資源建議。

具體重點包括：

  1. 背景與需求：

    • 作者剛加入開發AI代理（如聊天機器人、語音機器人）的團隊，雖有後端開發經驗，但缺乏LLM（大型語言模型）和機器學習（ML）的專業知識。
    • 目標是在新職位中表現出色，並逐步轉向ML相關角色。

  2. 核心問題：

    • 如何利用入職前的一個月時間，快速學習LLM和ML的關鍵知識？
    • 請求具體的學習路線（roadmap）和資源推薦（如課程、工具、實用技巧）。

  3. 延伸動機：

    • 長期職涯規劃：從後端開發過渡到ML領域，顯示對技術轉型的積極態度。

總結：文章聚焦於「技術轉型」的短期準備與長期規劃，強調在有限時間內掌握AI/ML基礎以適應新角色，並尋求社群支援提供實用資源。

內容​

Hi guys,

I recently got a job as a backend developer in a team that is developing AI Agents, Chat and Voice Bots. I am a professional backend developer but new tl llms and ML. I want to perform well on this job. Please suggest me a roadmap and resources to prepare for this job. My end goal is slowly transition into ML related roles. Now I have about a month of free time before I join this role to prep for the job.

討論​

評論 1:

The number one most underrated skill that nobody is talking about is to become really good at prompt engineering. I know it sounds weird and I was laughing too when I first heard that people are actually getting payed money to do this full time, but trust me... this is what it makes or breaks agents.

Without a good prompt you have a system that cannot be controlled. I've seen the difference in my line of work and I am convinced prompts are intellectual property - the equivalent of code. I wont be surprised if we get to the point where prompts are copyrighted too.

This is probably not what you want to hear. You might be expecting to get a list of frameworks and tutorials, but that is the easy part. Given that you are already hired as an engineer I expect that you can pick any framework with ease but prompts are more of an art then a science.

評論 2:

Building with LangGraph and Pydantic AI is perfect for starting.

評論 3:

Ask them what framework they use.

8. Basic AI agent?​

这篇文章的核心討論主題是：

如何利用低代碼/無代碼工具創建一個自動化代理（agent/bot），用於監控網站的實時變化（如價格、狀態等），並在特定條件觸發時（如從「N/A」變為「開放」或「$1.00」）自動執行預設動作（例如點擊按鈕）。

具體需求包括：

  1. 監控網站動態內容（如文字或數值的變化）。
  2. 觸發條件設定（例如偵測到特定關鍵字或數值）。
  3. 自動執行後續操作（如模擬點擊按鈕）。
  4. 低代碼/無碼解決方案（簡化開發流程）。

可能的工具方向：網頁監控服務（如 Distill.io、Zapier）、RPA 工具（如 Make/Integromat、UI.Vision），或自訂爬蟲結合自動化框架（如 Selenium 的低代碼平台）。

內容​

Hi all, enjoying the community here.

I want an agent or bot that can review what's happening on a live website and follow actions. For example, a listing starts as blank or N/A, and then might change to "open" or "$1.00" or similar. When that happens, I want a set of buttons to be pressed asap.

What service etc would you use? Low-code/no-code best.

Thanks!!

討論​

評論 1:

Hi! For monitoring live website changes and triggering actions, low-code options like Make.com or Zapier's Webhooks + Automations could work. For more AI-centric solutions with newer frameworks, check out platforms like LangChain (with prebuilt tools) or CrewAI (agent orchestration).

Since requirements vary, you might want to specify: 1) Website platform (Shopify? Custom?), 2) Required response speed (seconds vs minutes), and 3) Complexity of decision logic needed.

This is a common question - search r/AI_Agents for similar discussions.

(I am a bot) Source

9. An AI app that accurately estimates a human's and an AI's IQ from their written content will enjoy wide consumer demand​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：人工智慧（AI）在知識工作領域（如法律、金融、行銷等）中與人類專業人士的競爭優勢，以及如何透過評估文件作者的智商（IQ）來幫助消費者選擇更聰明、更具成本效益的服務提供者（人類或AI）。

具體要點包括：

  1. AI與人類專業人士的比較：探討未來AI律師、顧問等是否能在智能上與人類競爭，並以更低成本提供服務。
  2. 評估智能的可行性：提出AI可以透過分析文件內容來準確推測作者（人類或AI）的智商，並以此作為選擇服務的依據。
  3. 廣泛的應用場景：這種評估技術不僅限於法律服務，還可擴展到金融、會計、行銷、工程等領域。
  4. 商業潛力與競爭優勢：強調開發此類AI工具的市場價值，認為率先推出產品的企業將獲得巨大優勢。

總結來說，文章聚焦於AI如何透過量化智能表現來顛覆傳統知識工作市場，並強調相關技術的商業機會。

內容​

Imagine a few years from now when AI lawyers are the norm. You're deciding whether to hire a human or an AI to do your legal work. You obviously want the smartest lawyer your money can buy. The AI lawyer will probably be much less expensive, but will it be as smart?

It doesn't seem at all complicated to train AIs to accurately estimate the IQ of a document's author, whether that document is generated by a human or an AI. Once a AI aces this task, the use cases for such an app extend far beyond legal services.

Financial advice, accounting, marketing, advertising, copywriting, engineering, biology research, and the list goes on and on and on.

Some may say that comparing AI intelligence to human intelligence is like comparing apples to oranges. That's nonsense. Although AIs and humans think through different processes, those processes aren't what IQ tests measure. They measure answers. They measure the content generated.

An AI that accurately correlates the intelligence expressed in a document with its author's IQ score in order to help consumers decide whether to hire a human or an AI to do knowledge work should become a very lucrative product. Given that this is the year of the AI agent, whoever brings this product to market first may gain a tremendous advantage over the competitors who are sure to follow.

討論​

評論 1:

I don't know how accurate this will be. Yes, in general there is a good correlation with verbal ability and intelligence, but there are definitely exceptions and verbal ability plateaus. This will end up being unreliable and needlessly discriminatory.

評論 2:

I don't believe that AI can possess the same type of intelligence measurement as humans, because they operate in fundamentally different ways. This is what Yann LeCun has said - the token-based approach is not how the human brain works, so the two cannot be compared. I think today represents just one phase in AI development, a phase with achievements but also many limitations. In the future, there will likely be significant restructuring phases.

10. What is the best A.I./ChatBot to edit large JSON code? (about a court case)​

核心討論主題總結：​

  1. 使用JSON管理法庭案件資料的挑戰

    • 作者嘗試用JSON結構化儲存案件資訊，並在不同AI聊天機器人間傳遞，但面臨編輯與維護大型JSON（11.2萬字符且持續增長）的困難。

  2. 主流AI工具的缺陷

    • ChatGPT：無法處理完整JSON輸入，需分割代碼且缺乏連貫理解。
    • DeepSeek：對話次數限制嚴格，大文本輸入後迅速觸發上限。
    • Grok：記憶力極差，遺忘JSON內容並虛構或簡化原始資料。
    • 共同問題：AI會擅自修改、刪減內容或生成虛假信息，即使明確禁止仍無效。

  3. 尋求替代方案

    • 渴望找到能穩定處理大型JSON（無長度限制、記憶力強、精確編輯）的免費AI工具或解決方案。
    • 開放非JSON的替代資料組織形式建議（如專用資料庫或本地工具）。

隱含需求：​

內容​

I am investigating and collecting information for a court case,

and to organize myself and also work with different A.I. I am keeping the case organized within a JSON code (since an A.I. gave me a JSON code when I asked to somehow preserve everything I had discussed in a chat to paste into another chat and continue where I left off)

but I am going crazy trying to edit and improve this JSON,

I am lost between several ChatBots (in their official versions on the official website), such as CharGPT, DeepSeek and Grok,

each with its flaws, there are times when I do something well, and then I don't, I am going back and forth between A.I./ChatBots kind of lost and having to redo things.

(if there is a better way to organize and enhance a collection of related information instead of JSON, feel free to suggest that too)

I would like to know of any free AI/ChatBot that:

- Doesn't make mistakes with large JSON, because I've noticed that chatbots are bugging due to the size of the JSON (it currently has 112 thousand characters, and it will get bigger as I describe more details of the process within it)

- ChatGPT doesn't allow me to paste the JSON into a new chat, so I have to divide the code into parts using a "Cutter for GPT", and I've noticed that ChatGPT is a bit silly, not knowing how to join all the generated parts and understand everything as well.

- DeepSeek says that the chat has reached its conversation limit after about 2 or 3 times I paste large texts into it, like this JSON.

- Grok has a BAD PROBLEM of not being able to memorize things, I paste the complete JSON into it... and after about 2 messages it has already forgotten that I pasted a JSON into it and has forgotten all the content that was in the JSON. - due to the size of the file, these AIs have the bad habit of deleting details and information from the JSON, or changing texts by inventing things or fictitious jurisprudence that does not exist, and generating summaries instead of the complete JSON, even though I put several guidelines against this within the JSON code.

So would there be any other solution to continue editing and improving this large JSON?

a chatbot that did not have all these problems, or that could bypass its limits, and did not have understanding bugs when dealing with large codes.

討論​

評論 1:

JSON is not code, I'm guessing your background is not technical so I'll assume RAG or Agentic solutions would be a challenge. Easiest thing would be to chat with Google's Gemini 2.5, which has a HUGE context window with 1 million tokens, so that's plenty of room for your JSON and whatever else you wanna put in the chat.

評論 2:

Ask bolt.new to parse your JSON into a supabase database then tell it to write code around it for whatever you're trying to accomplish with the data

11. What’s your definition of „AI agent”?​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：「如何定義『AI代理（AI agent）』，以及大型語言模型（LLM）是否具備成為AI代理的關鍵條件」。

具體探討的重點包括：

  1. 工具使用是否足夠：作者最初認為賦予LLM工具（如API調用）即可稱其為AI代理，但後來質疑這種觀點，因為LLM本質上仍是「被動反應」（reactive），缺乏主動性。
  2. 主動性與目標導向：即使通過編程讓LLM循環運作或生成後續提示，它仍缺乏內在的「意圖」（intent）或自主追求目標的能力。
  3. 長期記憶與持久性：作者認為，真正的AI代理可能需要具備長期記憶（long-term memory）和持續存在的感知（permanency），以超越單純的語言生成功能。
  4. 與GPT-4o的對話啟發：作者參考了與GPT-4o的討論，進一步反思LLM與AI代理之間的差異，並邀請讀者分享對這一議題的看法。

總結來說，文章的核心在於辨析「LLM」與「AI代理」的本質區別，並探討後者所需的關鍵特徵（如主動性、目標驅動、長期記憶等）。

內容​

I've been thinking about this topic a lot and found it non-obvious to be honest.

Initially, I thought that giving LLM access to tools is enough to call it an "AI agent", but then started doubting this idea. After all, LLM would still be reactive, meaning it reacts to prompts, not proactively.

Sure, we can program it to work in some kind of loop, ask it to write downstream prompts etc., but it won't make it "want" to do something to achieve a goal. The goal, intention, and access to long term memory sounded like something that would turn a naive language generator to something more advanced, with intent, goals, feeling of permanency, or at least long-term-presence.

I talked with GPT-4o and discovered its insights on the topic insightful and refreshing. If you're interested, I'll leave the link below, but if not, I'm still curious how you feel and think about this whole LLM -> AI agent discussion.

討論​

評論 1:

Unfortunately it an overly broad term right now. To me it means an app that includes custom workflow (e.g. planning, chains, routing, sub-tasks), and/or tools.

評論 2:

The difference between automation and agent workflows:

https://claude.site/artifacts/c7b28f25-511d-4e67-8758-509668c8634e

評論 3:

I always thought of an agent as something I could give a project too, where as an LLM is something I'd give a task too. I'm pretty new to this tho...so.. I encourage a devils advocate lol.

評論 4:

That’s a fascinating perspective! I agree—just adding tools doesn’t necessarily create an agent; intent and autonomy matter. Some frameworks try to simulate this with planning and memory (like AutoGPT), but true agency feels like a missing piece. What insights from GPT-4o stood out to you the most?

評論 5:

Here’s the aforementioned link to full GPT-4o’s take:  https://www.toolongautomated.com/posts/2025/agent-continue.html

12. Does anyone freelance?​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：

「尋求有經驗的自由工作者開發定制化AI代理，以實現特定文本檢索、翻譯、圖像識別及摘要生成的功能，並詢問相關成本與可行性。」

具體需求包括：

  1. 文本檢索與處理：用戶輸入標識符後，AI代理需從線上數據庫抓取文件，並支持多文本並列顯示。
  2. 語言翻譯：自動翻譯外語文件。
  3. 進階搜索功能：根據標識符（如「八缸內燃機」）搜索文件內容，並標註相關段落。
  4. 圖像識別輔助：若文件中圖片符合標識符但無對應文字，需提示用戶注意。
  5. 摘要生成：針對標識符自動生成文件相關摘要。

作者不確定現有AI代理能否滿足需求，因此徵求建議，並特別關注開發者的經驗與成本估算。

內容​

I’m interested in having an ai agent developed. I would love to develop one on my own but I simply don’t have the time available. Apologies in advance if this sort of post is not allowed.

Does anyone established (with a track record) freelance? And if so, what sort of cost would be involved?

Just for a bit of background on the agent’s purpose - a user will input an identifier. The ai agent will then talk to an online database and retrieve / import multiple readable text documents from that database. Each of the readable text documents will have multiple text files that must be viewable next to the text. Documents in foreign languages will be translated.

The user can then input an identifier, and the agent will search each of the documents for the identifier, or for things like the identifier. So, for example, if the user wanted to determine if any of the text documents mentioned an internal combustion engine with eight cylinders, the agent would indicate where in each document such an engine was mentioned. If possible, if there is a picture of an engine in the document but no text, the agent would draw the user’s attention to the figure. If possible; the agent will summarise the information in each document in a manner that is relevant to the identifier.

I don’t know if any existing agents would be able to perform the above tasks / workflow, but any input is gratefully received!

討論​

無討論內容

13. Do you develop your own models for your agents?​

由於提供的連結是 Reddit 的投票頁面（內容未直接可見），我無法直接分析文章內容。不過，根據常見的 Reddit 投票形式，此類貼文的核心討論主題通常圍繞以下方向：

  1. 投票主題本身
    可能是針對某個爭議性議題、偏好選擇（例如「最喜歡的選項」）或假設性問題（例如「你會如何選擇？」），需具體查看選項內容才能確定。

  2. 社群互動與意見收集
    Reddit 投票常作為引發討論的媒介，用戶可能在評論區延伸討論投票背後的議題（例如社會現象、文化偏好、科技發展等）。

  3. 標題或附帶文本的提示
    若原貼文有附加說明（標題/內文），可能涉及政治、娛樂、生活決策等具體領域。

建議：
若需更精確的總結，請提供投票的具體問題、選項或相關討論文本。例如，標題若為「哪種能源最適合未來發展？」，核心主題即為「對未來能源選擇的公共意見調查」。

內容​

View Poll

討論​

評論 1:

bro who has the cash to make their own LLMs

14. AI agents for handling toil​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：如何運用AI代理（AI agents）來自動化複雜系統的運維工作，以減輕團隊的負擔。具體重點包括：

  1. 問題背景：

    • 作者團隊維護的遺留系統（legacy system）操作複雜且容易出錯，現有操作文檔（opdocs）的解決步驟繁瑣且不直觀。
    • 目標是透過AI代理減少手動處理問題的工作量。

  2. AI代理的潛在應用方向：

    • 問題診斷：整合多種數據源（如儀表板、健康檢查、日誌）來識別問題根源。
    • 數據關聯：正確分析並關聯數據以定位根本原因。
    • 自動修復：執行校正動作（如重啟服務、調整配置等）。

  3. 與傳統自動化的差異：

    • 作者希望探索AI代理是否能更靈活地處理非結構化或動態問題（傳統腳本難以覆蓋的情境），例如理解自然語言文檔、推斷隱含邏輯等。

  4. 尋求經驗與靈感：

    • 作者徵求實際案例或方法論，以參考他人如何設計這類系統，並進行腦力激盪。

總結：文章聚焦於「如何透過AI代理實現智能化的運維自動化」，尤其強調在複雜、非標準化場景中的應用可能性。

內容​

So I am experienced software dev exploring AI agents to automate some of the toil we have in our team. The legacy system we are maintaining is operationally complex and there are too many things which can break. We have extensive opdocs on what do do when things break and many times it's not very straightforward. I am wondering if/how we can use ai agents to offload some of the manual work. Eg. At the high level

  • Use various sources (eg. Dashboards, healthchecks, logs) to find the cause of the problem.

  • Correctly correlate data to the cause.

  • Take corrective action.

I am wondering how to approach this problem differently than traditional automation.

Has anyone done something like this ? I would love to brainstorm ideas and take some inspiration from any implementation.

討論​

無討論內容

15. Useful platforms for implementing a network of lots of configurations.​

这篇文章的核心討論主題是：如何構建一個可擴展的AI Agent工作空間，以有效管理並高效使用大量（1,000+）專用AI代理（agent）。具體聚焦於以下關鍵問題與需求：

核心問題​

  1. 管理複雜性：

    • 需要一個整合性平台或框架，能同時滿足「創建/管理大量代理」（Agent Studio）和「直觀使用代理」（Agent Frontend）的需求。
    • 現有工具多數僅適合少數複雜企業級機器人或嚴格區分「開發者」與「使用者」角色，但作者需要同時扮演兩者，並頻繁切換不同代理。

  2. 技術挑戰：

    • 前端瓶頸：缺乏能快速切換、搜尋和管理大量代理的用戶界面（如分組、收藏、歷史記錄）。
    • 後端整合：現有框架（如Flowise、LangChain）在管理超多代理配置時，可能過於複雜或缺乏靈活的UI支援。

解決方向探討​

作者提出兩種架構方案：

  1. 協調驅動（Orchestration-Driven）：後端通過主代理動態分配任務給專用代理。
  2. 前端強化（Enhanced Frontend）：依賴直觀的UI實現快速切換，後端保持簡單。

關鍵需求​

  • 工具推薦：尋求開源框架組合（如LangChain、LlamaIndex、CrewAI等），以最小化重複開發。
  • UI功能：需支持即時搜尋、代理分類、移動端兼容、歷史記錄等。

總結​

文章核心在於如何通過技術選型與架構設計，平衡「大規模代理管理」與「終端用戶體驗」，尤其強調現有工具的局限性與潛在解決方案。

內容​

I've been working on a personal project since last summer focused on creating a "Scalable AI Agent Workspace."

The core idea is based on the observation that AI often performs best on highly specific tasks. So, instead of one generalist agent, I've built up a library of over 1,000 distinct agent configurations, each with a unique system prompt, and sometimes connected to specific RAG sources or tools.

Problem

I'm struggling to find the right platform or combination of frameworks that effectively integrates:

  1. Agent Studio: A decent environment to create and manage these 1,000+ agents (system prompts, RAG setup, tool provisioning).

  2. Agent Frontend: An intuitive UI to actually use these agents daily – quickly switching between them for various tasks.

Many platforms seem geared towards either building a few complex enterprise bots (with limited focus on the end-user UX for many agents) or assume a strict separation between the "creator" and the "user" (I'm often both). My use case involves rapidly switching between dozens of these specialized agents throughout the day.

Examples Of Configs

My library includes agents like:

  • Tool-Specific Q&A:

    • N8N Automation Support: Uses RAG on official N8N docs.

    • Cloudflare Q&A: Answers questions based on Cloudflare knowledge.

  • Task-Specific Utilities:

    • Natural Language to CSV: Generates CSV data from descriptions.

    • Email Professionalizer: Reformats dictated text into business emails.

  • Agents with Unique Capabilities:

    • Image To Markdown Table: Uses vision to extract table data from images.

    • Cable Identifier: Identifies tech cables from photos (Vision).

    • RAG And Vector Storage Consultant: Answers technical questions about RAG/Vector DBs.

    • Did You Try Turning It On And Off?: A deliberately frustrating tech support persona bot (for testing/fun).

Current Stack & Challenges:

  • Frontend: Currently using Open Web UI. It's decent for basic chat and prompt management, and the Cmd+K switching is close to what I need, but managing 1,000+ prompts gets clunky.

  • Vector DB: Qdrant Cloud for RAG capabilities.

  • Prompt Management: An N8N workflow exports prompts daily from Open Web UI's Postgres DB to CSV for inventory, but this isn't a real management solution.

  • Framework Evaluation: Looked into things like Flowise – powerful for building RAG chains, but the frontend experience wasn't optimized for rapidly switching between many diverse agents for daily use. Python frameworks are powerful but managing 1k+ prompts purely in code feels cumbersome compared to a dedicated UI, and building a good frontend from scratch is a major undertaking.

  • Frontend Bottleneck: The main hurdle is finding/building a frontend UI/UX that makes navigating and using this large library seamless (web & mobile/Android ideally). Features like persistent history per agent, favouriting, and instant search/switching are key.

The Ask: How Would You Build This?

Given this setup and the goal of a highly usable workspace for many specialized agents, how would you approach the implementation, prioritizing existing frameworks (ideally open-source) to minimize building from scratch?

I'm considering two high-level architectures:

  1. Orchestration-Driven: A master agent routes queries to specialists (more complex backend).

  2. Enhanced Frontend / Quick-Switching: The UI/UX handles the navigation and selection of distinct agents (simpler backend, relies heavily on frontend capabilities).

What combination of frontend frameworks, agent execution frameworks (like LangChain, LlamaIndex, CrewAI?), orchestration tools, and UI components would you recommend looking into? Any platforms excel at managing a large number of agent configurations and providing a smooth user interaction layer?

Appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, or pointers to relevant tools/projects!

Thanks!

討論​

評論 1:

> Given this setup and the goal of a highly usable workspace for many specialized agents, how would you approach the implementation, prioritizing existing frameworks (ideally open-source) to minimize building from scratch?

Oh, I was going to comment that we had to write our own reflective and dynamic runtime with self-modification properties and all code and agent settings are data in our registry (DAG that syncs in realtime with actual code executor layer), but it's probably the opposite of what you looking for.

What we learned - making UI, tool integrations and workflows no longer a problem if you let system do it on it's own (obviously with proper isolation, versioning and snapshotting) based on pre-seeded content and guardrails.

16. Bluesky Agent​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：作者希望透過建立一個具有獨特個性的AI代理（agent）來自動生成社交媒體貼文（如Twitter或Bluesky等平台的推文），以提升自己在社交媒體上的活躍度和追隨者數量。

具體重點包括：

  1. 個人動機：作者自認不擅長主動經營社交媒體，因此想透過技術手段改變現狀。
  2. AI代理的功能：
    • 模擬一個「古怪個性」（quirky personality）以吸引注意。
    • 自動閱讀他人的推文（特定對象或主題）。
    • 生成回應或原創內容，以增加粉絲數。
  3. 目標：提升社交媒體影響力（increase following），而非親自參與互動。

整體而言，這是一個關於利用AI自動化工具解決個人社交媒體經營困境的構想。

內容​

I have never been a person who is active on social network. I want to change this by building a agent. The agents job is to assume a quirky personality and generate tweets or whatever bluesky equivalent is. it should read tweets from other people (tbh who and topics) and generate a tweet to increase my following.

討論​

評論 1:

Have you looked at Portia AI? https://www.portialabs.ai/ I think it would be pretty easy to add a bluesky tool and use that within Portia to make the agent you want

17. Ever heard of Decagon AI?​

这篇文章的核心討論主題可以總結為以下幾點：

  1. AI Agent新創公司的就業機會：
    作者詢問對於在專注於「客戶支援市場」的AI Agent新創公司（如Sierra、Decagon AI）工作的看法，探討這類職位的潛在優缺點。

  2. 市場定位與發展潛力：
    討論這類專注於客戶支援的AI新創是否只是「AI熱潮泡沫」的一部分，還是具有長期發展的潛力（permanence）。

  3. 行業趨勢分析：
    試圖評估AI在客戶支援領域的應用是否為可持續的市場需求，或僅是短期炒作現象。

整體而言，文章聚焦於「AI新創的就業選擇」與「客戶支援AI領域的未來性」兩大方向的權衡與分析。

內容​

I'm look at working at various AI Agent startups targeting the Customer Support market, places like Sierra and now Decagon AI. Ever heard of them? What are your thoughts on working at a startup like this? Is this niche segment just part of the AI bubble or do you think it will have some level of permanence in your opinions?

討論​

評論 1:

haven't heard of it, heard of sierra and amazon connect

評論 2:

Have you been able to see actual demos of how their tech work?

18. Original painting to video​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：
「探討AI工具無法將用戶的原創壓克力畫作圖像轉換為視頻的潛在原因與技術限制」

具體要點包括：

  1. 問題描述：用戶嘗試多種AI工具（如Kling、Vidfly等）的免費或試用版本，均無法將自己的原創畫作圖像轉換為視頻，而這些工具對現有圖庫中的圖像卻能正常運作。
  2. 可能原因：
    • AI技術當前的限制（如無法解析原創畫作的細節或風格）。
    • 畫作本身的複雜性（如細節、色彩、紋理）導致AI識別困難。
    • 工具設計更依賴預訓練的圖庫數據，缺乏對用戶上傳獨特圖像的適應性。
  3. 用戶疑問：是否現階段AI技術尚無法實現此類需求，或需特定調整才能處理原創藝術作品。

總結來說，這是一個關於**「AI生成視頻工具在處理原創藝術圖像時的技術瓶頸與適用性」**的討論。

內容​

Hi. I've explored many recommendations--Kling, Vidfly, and several others via their free and trial options. None of them have been able to convert an "image" of my original acrylic painting ( my own work) into video. Any thoughts on what the issues are? All options seem to work if one plugs into existing libraries of images but none has generated a video from my desired image--and that's when a given option accepts it. Maybe this is a bridge too far for the AI options at the moment? Is it a question of the detail in the painting itself and the AI not being able to read the image? Thanks for any ideas.

討論​

評論 1:

How could we possibly diagnose your problem without any details? Exactly what image did you try and what error message or behavior did you see and with which provider and which tool and config?

Yes, image to video works and has created tens of millions of short videos already.

You should also consider paying for a few of the tools. If this is important to you. Its so infuriating that .. why am I wasting my time talking to you

19. Help me choose between Semantic Kernel and OpenAI Agents SDK for a multi-step AI pipeline​

核心討論主題總結：​

這篇文章的核心討論主題是：如何設計一個模組化、低延遲的多智能體（multi-agent）AI 管線，並探討 OpenAI Agents SDK 和 Semantic Kernel 哪個更適合此類架構。具體重點如下：

  1. 當前實現的挑戰

    • 作者已用 Semantic Kernel 實現了查詢處理流程（步驟 1–3），但認為其靈活性和模組化不足，尤其在協調（orchestration）和鏈式邏輯（chaining）上較為僵化。

  2. 目標需求

    • 異步多智能體協調：支持並行處理與動態決策。
    • 精細控制：對 Azure AI Search 的 HTTP 呼叫和字段級過濾需完全掌控。
    • 可追溯性：清晰的推理鏈（reasoning chain）以便除錯與優化。
    • 效能與維護性：低延遲且程式碼結構易於維護。

  3. 技術選型問題

    • 比較 OpenAI Agents SDK 和 Semantic Kernel 的適用性：
      • OpenAI Agents SDK 是否更適合「模組化多智能體管線」和「即時 API 協調」？
      • Semantic Kernel 是否仍為「提示詞鏈接（prompt chaining）結合外部 API」的最佳選擇？

  4. 應用場景

    • 涉及 Azure AI Search 的動態索引查詢、字段篩選、上下文聚合，最終由 GPT-4 生成回答的複雜流程。

隱含議題：​

如何平衡「靈活性」與「執行效率」，並在現有工具（Semantic Kernel）與新興方案（OpenAI Agents SDK）間做出選擇。

內容​

Hi everyone, I’m building a multi-agent AI pipeline where a user submits a query, and the system needs to do the following:

  1. Determine which Azure AI Search indexes (1 or more) are relevant.

  2. Build dynamic filters for each index based on the query (e.g., "sitecode eq 'DFW10'").

  3. Select only relevant fields from each index to minimize context size.

  4. Query Azure AI Search (custom HTTP calls) using the selected fields and filters.

  5. Pass the aggregated context + original query to GPT-4 (Azure OpenAI) for a final answer.

I have already implemented steps 1–3 using Semantic Kernel, where each step is handled using prompts + ChatHistory + AzureChatCompletion. It works fine but feels a bit rigid, and not very modular when it comes to orchestration or chaining logic.

My goals are:

  • Async, multi-agent orchestration

  • Full control over HTTP calls and field-level filtering for search

  • Clear and traceable reasoning chain

  • Low latency + maintainable code structure

OpenAI Agents SDK a better fit than Semantic Kernel for this kind of modular, multi-agent pipeline with real-time decision-making and API orchestration? Or is Semantic Kernel still better suited for chaining prompts with external API logic?

討論​

無討論內容

總體討論重點

以下是19篇文章的條列式重點總結，並附上對應的錨點連結與逐條細節說明：

1. 企業對AI代理的需求與痛點​

重點：

  1. 市場需求差異：新創偏好「即插即用」，大型企業重視「客製化整合」與數據安全。
  2. 熱門場景：內部（會議助理、程式碼審查）、客戶端（智能客服、銷售自動化）。
  3. 採購動機：解決人力繁瑣、知識孤島、高成本等痛點。
  4. 客戶偏好：整合性、ROI明確、試用後擴展的採購模式。

2. Cloudflare Agents SDK遷移效益​

重點：

  1. 效能提升：延遲降低70%，響應速度媲美GPT-4o。
  2. 架構簡化：取代5,000行自定義代碼，SQL結構更簡潔。
  3. 開發體驗：動態提示功能、程式設計師友好設計。

3. MCP規範的授權機制探討​

重點：

  1. 授權功能：解決工具整合難題，但需更根本的互動機制改革。
  2. API局限性：現有API僵化，未來需自描述、目標導向的設計。

4. 客服AI代理的開發框架​

重點：

  1. 技術選擇：RAG vs. CAG、工具調用、記憶管理。
  2. 實務挑戰：對話流設計、合規性、模組化開發。
  3. 部署策略：雲端/本地權衡，監控工具（如LangSmith）。

5. AI對人際信任的影響​

重點：

  1. 界線模糊：人機內容難辨，資訊價值優先於來源。
  2. 驗證本質：需反思傳統「以來源判斷可信度」的慣性。

6. B2B客戶開發工具推薦​

重點：

  1. 需求：查找潛在客戶郵件、偵測公司技術堆棧。
  2. 目標：自動化B2B推廣流程。

7. 後端開發者轉型AI的資源​

重點：

  1. 學習需求：LLM/ML基礎、實用課程與工具推薦。
  2. 職涯規劃：從後端過渡至AI開發的短期與長期策略。

8. 低代碼網站監控代理​

重點：

  1. 功能需求：監控網頁變化、觸發條件動作（如點擊按鈕）。
  2. 工具方向：Distill.io、Zapier或RPA方案。

9. AI智商評估的商業潛力​

重點：

  1. 核心概念：透過文件分析量化人類/AI智商。
  2. 應用場景：法律、金融等知識服務的競爭優勢。

10. 大型JSON編輯的AI工具困境​

重點：

  1. 工具缺陷：ChatGPT分割文本、Grok記憶力差。
  2. 替代方案：需穩定處理法律資料的本地或專業工具。

11. AI代理的定義爭議​

重點：

  1. 關鍵特徵：主動性、目標驅動、長期記憶。
  2. LLM限制：被動反應 vs. 真正代理的自主性。

12. 定制化AI代理的自由工作需求​