sadly it's may 2026 and we still go through this weird cycle of making up claims & clearly not reading the paper. so let's clear this all up now (for the Nth time). I've made it explicitly clear time and time again that I don't claim I "invented" anything other than the actual RLM definition itself:
1. the paper doesn't claim it's the first to explore an LM talking to an LM (talking to an LM...)
2. the paper doesn't claim it's the first to explore sub-agents
3. the paper doesn't claim it's the first to argue for CodeAct-style execution
4. the paper doesn't claim it's the first propose recursion with respect to an LM
5. the paper doesn't claim to be the first to propose any of the independent features that make an RLM (context offloading, PTC, etc.)
all of the ideas that make up an RLM are somewhat intuitive and implemented in various ways, many with little success. the composition of them, and the lack of a need for any more, is what makes it unique. and the idea that it should be applied to arbitrary, systems independent of their use-case
the paper is an argument for exactly the type of abstractions one should define to better enable a sub-agent calling system (i.e. context offloading, CodeAct-style execution, programmatically sub-agent calling). It also argues that the line between a sub-agent calling system and a "language model" is blurry, and that a well-designed, general enough abstraction yields a meaningful "language model".
the last few releases in Claude Code have moved away from standard ReAct-style loops with JSON tool-calling to more of this abstraction. The recent release is very exciting to me (and why I talk about it being RLM-like) because a lot of the abstractions we've been arguing for are emerging in frontier lab systems.
tbh I get a lot of randos with takes like this, but as someone who quite likes the research you put out, this is pretty disappointing