That’s Not an Agent

There are two places where I've seen people misuse the term "agent". One of them is benign, the other not so much.

First, the benign version. Talking with potential clients, they're genuinely curious about AI but aren't necessarily familiar with all the fine distinctions. So they have an idea for where AI might help them, and they call that solution an "agent". That's not the place to barge in with a "Well, actually... ". What matters more is their intent and the problem they're facing, as well as what "solved" would look like for that problem. Once we design and present a solution, we'll explain that the final product may or may not end up being an agent. What matters is that the problem gets solved.

Now for the not-so-nice version: Folks who sell something software-related, knowing full well that it's not actually an agent, but they call it that to tap into hype and fear. I've seen simple automations ("Post a message to the team chat when a user files a bug") described as "our customer support agent". Ouch. If it's not a large language model (or multiple, at that) embedded in a system with a feedback loop, autonomously invoking tools to achieve an outcome, it's not an agent.

Why does it matter there, and not in a client conversation? Because if we're selling a service and positioning ourselves as experts, we have to be precise in our communications. We have to stand for what we advertise. You get what we say you get, and it won't be dressed up in colourful, hyped-up language.

Needless to say, if you're looking for someone to blow smoke and sound fancy, you can go somewhere else. But if you're after someone who'll solve challenging problems with what’s appropriate instead of what’s hip with the tech influencers, we're right here.