They are confused in the word they use: the article on what Cursor is pushing does not, according to ^F, mention "swarm" at all. Since we have a word for multiple agents working on one task, it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right?

I bring it up not to be pedantic, but because if you think it implies multi-tasking and dismiss it, you are missing out on it's ability to help in single-tasking.

I think cursor doesn't make distinction between single or multiple logical tasks for swarm-like workloads. Subagents is the word they use for the swarm workers.

Fwiw when I select multiple models for a prompt it just feeds the same prompt to them in parallel (isolated worktrees), this isn't the same as the swarm pattern in 2.4+ (default no worktrees).

> I bring it up not to be pedantic

The OP is fundamentally expressing the opinion that single task threads are easier to keep track of.

Agree / disagree? Sure.

…but dipping into pedantry about terms (swarm, subagent, vine coding, agentic engineering) really doesn't add anything to the conversation does it?

You said:

> I think you misunderstand "swarms of agents", based on what you say above.

…but from reading the entire post I am pretty skeptical anyone was confused as to what they meant.

Wrong term? Don't care. If someone calls it a hallucination? Also don't care.

That cursor is focusing on “do stuff in parallel guys!”? Yeah, I care about that.

> it is probably best not to use that word if you are referring to multiple agents working on multiple tasks, right?

Not relevant to the thread. Also, I work with people who casually swap between using these exact words to mean both things.

I donnnt caarrrrre what people call it.

…when the meaning is obvious from the context, it doesnt matter.