REVIEW 3 cited by
Agentic AI: Autonomy, Accountability, and the Algorithmic Society
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) can autonomously pursue long-term goals, make decisions, and execute complex, multi-turn workflows. Unlike traditional generative AI, which responds reactively to prompts, agentic AI proactively orchestrates processes, such as autonomously managing complex tasks or making real-time decisions. This transition from advisory roles to proactive execution challenges established legal, economic, and creative frameworks. In this paper, we explore challenges in three interrelated domains: creativity and intellectual property, legal and ethical considerations, and competitive effects. Central to our analysis is the tension between novelty and usefulness in AI-generated creative outputs, as well as the intellectual property and authorship challenges arising from AI autonomy. We highlight gaps in responsibility attribution and liability that create a "moral crumple zone"--a condition where accountability is diffused across multiple actors, leaving end-users and developers in precarious legal and ethical positions. We examine the competitive dynamics of two-sided algorithmic markets, where both sellers and buyers deploy AI agents, potentially mitigating or amplifying tacit collusion risks. We explore the potential for emergent self-regulation within networks of agentic AI--the development of an "algorithmic society"--raising critical questions: To what extent would these norms align with societal values? What unintended consequences might arise? How can transparency and accountability be ensured? Addressing these challenges will necessitate interdisciplinary collaboration to redefine legal accountability, align AI-driven choices with stakeholder values, and maintain ethical safeguards. We advocate for frameworks that balance autonomy with accountability, ensuring all parties can harness agentic AI's potential while preserving trust, fairness, & societal welfare.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Regulating autonomous and agentic AI
Agentic AI's unpredictability means regulators must extend liability and oversight across the AI supply chain and adopt real-time, AI-assisted supervision.
-
REConnect: Participatory RE for Social Sustainability
REConnect is a participatory requirements engineering framework, drawn from three community projects, that makes trust, co-design, and user empowerment the core of requirements work and assigns humans defined governan...
-
BetaWeb: Towards a Blockchain-enabled Trustworthy Agentic Web
BetaWeb promises a blockchain-enabled trustworthy agentic web, but the submitted manuscript body is a different mining-robot paper, leaving the proposal without supporting evidence.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.