What "Agentic" Quietly Hides
The language of agency conceals a shift in responsibility from system designers to users.
The term "agentic" has become a fixture in the current AI discourse, promising a future where software doesn't just respond to commands but acts on our behalf. However, this shift in language often masks a more subtle transition: the delegation of accountability.
When we describe a system as "agentic," we are implicitly attributing a degree of autonomy to it. In practice, this often serves to distance the designers and providers of these systems from the outcomes they produce. If an "agent" makes a mistake, the narrative suggests a failure of the agent's reasoning, rather than a flaw in its underlying architecture or the constraints imposed by its creators.
Furthermore, "agentic" interfaces often place a higher cognitive burden on the user. Instead of following well-defined paths, users must now "manage" these agents, judging their outputs and correcting their course. This isn't just a change in how we work with tools; it's a quiet renegotiation of who is responsible when those tools fail to deliver.
We should be wary of any terminology that makes responsibility harder to locate. As we build and adopt these systems, we must ensure that "agentic" doesn't become a synonym for "unaccountable."