IMHO, the word agent is quickly becoming meaningless. The amount of agency that sits with the program vs. the user is something that changes gradually. So we should think about these things in terms of how much agency are we willing to give away in each case and for what gain[1]. Then the ecosystem question that the paper is trying to solve will actually solve itself, because it is already the case today that in many…
Yes, the term is becoming ambiguous, but that's because it's abstracting out the part of AI that is most important and activating: the ability to work both independently and per intention/need.
Per the paper: "Key characteristics of agents include autonomy, programmability, reactivity, and proactiveness.[...] high degree of autonomy, making decisions and taking actions independently of human intervention."
Yes, "the ecosystem will evolve," but to understand and anticipate the evolution, one needs a notion of fitness, which is based on agency.
> So we should think about these things in terms of how much agency are we willing to give away in each case
It's unclear there can be any "we" deciding. For resource-limited development, the ecosystem will evolve regardless of our preferences or ethics according to economic advantage and capture of value. (Manufacturing went to China against the wishes of most everyone involved.)
More generally, the value is AI is not just replacing work. It's giving more agency to one person, avoiding the cost and messiness of delegation and coordination. It's gaining the same advantages seen where smaller team can be much more effective than a larger one.
Right now people are conflating these autonomy/delegation features with the extension features of AI agents (permitting them to interact with databases or web browsers). The extension vendors will continue to claim agency because it's much more alluring, but the distinction will likely become clear in a year or so.