<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Agents on MutatingFunc</title><link>https://mutatingfunc.github.io/tags/agents/</link><description>Recent content in Agents on MutatingFunc</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-uk</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://mutatingfunc.github.io/tags/agents/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>A sceptical look at LLMs &amp; Agents</title><link>https://mutatingfunc.github.io/blog/2026-03-07-a-sceptical-look-at-llms/</link><pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://mutatingfunc.github.io/blog/2026-03-07-a-sceptical-look-at-llms/</guid><description>I’m an LLM sceptic. LLMs controlling the computer is a security nightmare, misinformation is to be avoided.
Most modern agent clients build in some level of security, turning repetitive input tasks into a series of outputs &amp;amp; permissions dialogs. Permission dialogs suck, but output review is still faster than extended inputs.
There’s a workflow here:
Give a request. The LLM builds a small code-based tool to carry it out. Human reviews, tweaks, approves the tool.</description></item></channel></rss>