Multi-agent systems work well for easily parallelizable, "read-only" tasks like research, where sub-agents gather context independently. They are much trickier for "write" tasks like coding, where conflicting decisions between agents create integration problems.

In an attempt to scale autonomous coding, Cursor discovered that giving multiple AI agents equal status without hierarchy led to failure. The agents avoided difficult tasks, made only minor changes, and failed to take responsibility for major problems, causing the project to churn without meaningful progress.

Contrary to the expectation that more agents increase productivity, a Stanford study found that two AI agents collaborating on a coding task performed 50% worse than a single agent. This "curse of coordination" intensified as more agents were added, highlighting the significant overhead in multi-agent systems.

The performance gap between solo and cooperating AI agents was largest on medium-difficulty tasks. Easy tasks had slack for coordination overhead, while hard tasks failed regardless of collaboration. This suggests mid-level work, requiring a balance of technical execution and cooperation, is most vulnerable to coordination tax.

A recent study found that AI assistants actually slowed down programmers working on complex codebases. More importantly, the programmers mistakenly believed the AI was speeding them up. This suggests a general human bias towards overestimating AI's current effectiveness, which could lead to flawed projections about future progress.

To overcome the unproductivity of flat-structured agent teams, developers are adopting hierarchical models like the "Ralph Wiggum loop." This system uses "planner" agents to break down problems and create tasks, while "worker" agents focus solely on executing them, solving coordination bottlenecks and enabling progress.

While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.

Developers using AI agents report unprecedented productivity but also a decline in job satisfaction. The creative act of writing code is replaced by the tedious task of reviewing vast amounts of AI-generated output, shifting their role to feel more like a middle manager of code.

Using AI tools to spin up multiple sub-agents for parallel task execution forces a shift from linear to multi-threaded thinking. This new workflow can feel like 'ADD on steroids,' rewarding rapid delegation over deep, focused work, and fundamentally changing how users manage cognitive load and projects.