The word "Agent" is being talked to death lately.
Some say, if it can use tools, it's an Agent. Some say, if it can plan its own tasks, *that's* an Agent. Some say, only when it can operate a computer, browse the web, write code, send emails — then it deserves the name. Still others say, only when multiple AIs collaborate with each other do you have a real Agent.
They all sound right. But put them together, and it's a mess.
The problem isn't that everyone is wrong. Quite the opposite — everyone has grabbed hold of one piece of the truth.
Agent didn't suddenly appear as a new product category. It's more like several technical threads that have been advancing separately, and are now beginning to converge.
The first thread is **tool use**. Models no longer just chat — they can call search, calculators, databases, code interpreters. What this solves: AI can't just talk, it needs to be able to *do* things.
The second thread is **workflow**. Tasks that used to require a human brain to decompose can now be written as steps: search first, then organize, then compare, then output. This is essentially SOP — pseudocode in natural language. What it solves: AI can't improvise every time; it needs process.
The third thread is **computer use**. AI doesn't just call APIs — it looks at screens, clicks buttons, fills forms, drags files, like a person would. This matters enormously, because in the real world, a vast number of tasks have no clean API — the only way in is through the interface.
The fourth thread is **memory**. An Agent without memory is just a disposable temp worker. With long-term memory, it starts to become an assistant that knows your habits — what you like, what you hate, what you've done before.
The fifth thread is **multi-agent**. One Agent does research, one writes, one edits, one publishes to platforms. It looks like division of labor, but it's really about mimicking organizational structure.
So the debate over what an Agent really is reminds me of the old debate over "what is a computer, really?"
Is it a typewriter? A calculator? A game console? A communication device? An office?
All correct. But each is only a snapshot from one stage.
Today's Agent is exactly the same.
Tool use is the hands. Workflow is the method. Computer use is the body. Memory is experience. Multi-agent is the organization.
They started out looking like separate directions, but in the end, they are all heading toward the same place:
**Turning AI from "answering questions" into "getting things done."**
This is why so many people can't see the arc of Agent development.
They treat Agent as a feature. But Agent is really an evolutionary morphology.
The chatbot is the mouth. Tool calling is the hands. Workflow is habit. Memory is personality. Multi-agent is a small team.
Only when these come together does it start to look like a genuine digital labor force.
So I think the most interesting thing about the Agent era isn't that we've added yet another buzzword.
It's that software is transforming from **passive tools** into **active labor**.
In the past, we opened software, clicked menus, filled forms, waited for results. In the future, we set goals, define boundaries, watch the process, receive the outcome.
The gap between these two isn't just a little bit of automation. It's a fundamental shift in the human-machine relationship.
Of course, most Agents today are still pretty dumb. Like a fresh intern — full of enthusiasm, limited in understanding, occasionally taking the initiative in ways you didn't ask for. But you can't dismiss the entire system just because the intern is clumsy.
The real questions are: When will these capability threads converge? After convergence, who defines the boundaries? Who allocates authority? Who bears responsibility?
That's the next level of the problem.
Agent isn't just technology. It's forcing us to rethink: what is work, what is process, what is delegation.
This is today's Liwei 2 Minutes. Thanks for watching. by Tuya
