Hi guys I'm building a telegram bot with N8N but the messages that the agent sends always contain this sentence: This message was sent automatically with n8n, I want to get rid of that it is very annoying and it is basically everywhere Email, slack, etc... does it have a solution ? does it required to upgrade my plan in n8n?, if you have a solution be grateful to hear it.

Interesting one for you — and yes, I’m a bit hacked off, but also taking the lesson. A couple of years ago, when I decided to start an AI agency, I came up with what felt like a strong name: “Agentics”. Like most people, I checked domains first. No point building a brand and a business if the domain name isn’t available. As you’d expect: .ai (£113k), .com (£75k), .net (£15k), and .co.uk (undisclosed price) were all for sale. But .uk wasn’t. It was available. So I registered agentics.uk for £8 and got on with building a business. Fast forward to now — I’ve been trading under that name for nearly two years, helping SMEs with AI, automation, and agentic systems. Then today I received a formal “letter before action”. Another UK company has a registered trademark for a very similar sounding name and operates in a related space. Their position is: – the names are phonetically identical – our services overlap – therefore there is a likelihood of confusion I have seven days to comply with their demands, including: – immediately ceasing use of the name “Agentics” – removing branding and content across my website and social platforms – and executing a binding undertaking to transfer the domain agentics.uk Yes — that last one raised an eyebrow. A few reflections: 1. Naming in AI is a minefield We’re all converging on similar language — agents, agentic, automation — and what feels obvious can quickly overlap. 2. Domain ≠ brand Owning a domain doesn’t necessarily mean you’re safe to build a business under that name. 3. This gets real faster than you think It’s easy to ignore legal structure early on — until it shows up properly. My approach now: – stop using the name commercially – keep things clean and professional – move forward under my personal PAFoster.com brand No drama — just part of building something real. Has anyone else run into trademark issues in this space?

I think most builders are still thinking about AI agents as tools. In 2026, they're becoming teammates. We are moving from instruction-based computing, where we tell a computer how to do something, to intent-based computing, where we simply state the desired outcome and the agent determines how to deliver it. That's a fundamental shift in how systems are built. And the numbers back it up. The global agentic AI sector is projected to grow from $9.14 billion in early 2026 to over $139 billion by 2034, a CAGR of 40.5%. This isn't hype. This is infrastructure being built right now. Here's what that means practically for builders: What's emerging is not just smarter automation, but a new coordination layer, where different types of AI agents work together to run core business workflows at scale. Single agents are impressive. Multi-agent systems are transformative. The architecture that actually wins in 2026 looks like this: → One orchestrator reads intent and routes → Specialized agents each own one function → Every agent is isolated, independently testable, replaceable → The whole system runs on one trigger The era of simple prompts is over. We're witnessing the agent leap, where AI orchestrates complex, end-to-end workflows semi-autonomously. This is exactly what I built with Jake. One Telegram message. Five specialized agents. Full workflow executed. Zero manual work. The builders who understand coordination, not just automation, are the ones building systems that actually scale. That's the edge.

Most people talking about AI right now are focused on models. OpenAI. Anthropic. Google. The conversation is usually: Which model is best? But the more interesting question is actually this: Who controls the orchestration layer? In other words — the system that coordinates agents, tools, memory, workflows, and tasks. Because that layer will determine how AI actually gets used in the real world. --- 👉🏻 Think back to the 1990s Computing eventually standardised around an open operating system: Linux. Linux wasn’t the flashiest piece of technology. But it became the neutral infrastructure layer. Once that happened: - thousands of companies built on top of it - cloud computing standardised around it - innovation accelerated dramatically Today most of the internet runs on Linux in some form. Not because it was owned by one company — but because everyone could build on it. --- 👉🏻 Now look at AI The stack is beginning to look very similar. We now have: 1. Model layer – the intelligence 2. Orchestration layer – agents, planning, workflows 3. Tools and integrations – APIs, automation, databases 4. Applications – assistants, copilots, business agents The orchestration layer is where things get interesting. That’s the layer that turns a model into a useful system. And this is where OpenClaw comes in. --- 👉🏻 Why OpenClaw matters OpenClaw sits between models and applications. It allows developers to build agent systems that can use: - different models - different tools - different workflows - persistent memory - multiple cooperating agents Instead of locking everything into one ecosystem. That means a system built on OpenClaw could use: - OpenAI models today - Anthropic models tomorrow - a local model next year without rebuilding the whole architecture. That flexibility is incredibly powerful. --- 👉🏻 The alternative The big AI companies are also building orchestration layers. But theirs are closed ecosystems. That means: Use our models Use our tools

Most people comparing AI tools right now are accidentally comparing different layers of technology — and it’s causing a lot of confusion. Here’s the clean way to understand it: Claude Code and Codex CLI are the same category of tool. They’re both terminal-based coding agents powered by large language models. Their job is to read your codebase, edit files, run commands, and help you build software. OpenClaw is not in that category. OpenClaw isn’t a coding agent at all — it’s an orchestration framework. It manages agents, routes models, handles execution environments, and lets multiple AI systems work together. So the real comparisons should be: • Claude Code vs Codex CLI → coding agents • OpenClaw vs other orchestration frameworks → infrastructure Comparing Claude Code to OpenClaw is like comparing a car to a motorway. One is a vehicle. The other is the system it drives on. Why this matters: If you pick tools without understanding their layer, you’ll either overcomplicate your stack or expect a tool to do something it was never designed for. The smartest builders right now aren’t choosing “the best AI tool.” They’re designing the right architecture. Clarity at the architecture level saves months of frustration later. Best, P :)