Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Governing AI Agents

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

arxiv 2501.07913 v2 pith:NN7CGDH4 submitted 2025-01-14 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords agentsagencyproblemstheoryarticleframeworksgoverningmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The field of AI is undergoing a fundamental transition from generative models that can produce synthetic content to artificial agents that can plan and execute complex tasks with only limited human involvement. Companies that pioneered the development of language models have now built AI agents that can independently navigate the internet, perform a wide range of online tasks, and increasingly serve as AI personal assistants and virtual coworkers. The opportunities presented by this new technology are tremendous, as are the associated risks. Fortunately, there exist robust analytic frameworks for confronting many of these challenges, namely, the economic theory of principal-agent problems and the common law doctrine of agency relationships. Drawing on these frameworks, this Article makes three contributions. First, it uses agency law and theory to identify and characterize problems arising from AI agents, including issues of information asymmetry, discretionary authority, and loyalty. Second, it illustrates the limitations of conventional solutions to agency problems: incentive design, monitoring, and enforcement might not be effective for governing AI agents that make uninterpretable decisions and operate at unprecedented speed and scale. Third, the Article explores the implications of agency law and theory for designing and regulating AI agents, arguing that new technical and legal infrastructure is needed to support governance principles of inclusivity, visibility, and liability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ToolSelf: Unifying Task Execution and Self-Reconfiguration via Tool-Driven Emergent Adaptation

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM agent that can call a reconfiguration tool to update its sub-goals, toolbox, strategy, and context outperforms static-config agents across FRAMES, xbench, GAIA, and SWE-bench Lite.

  2. Alita: Generalist Agent Enabling Scalable Agentic Reasoning with Minimal Predefinition and Maximal Self-Evolution

    cs.AI 2025-05 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Alita achieves 75.15% pass@1 on GAIA validation by dynamically generating and reusing MCP-based tools, but the evaluation confounds model choice with the self-evolution mechanism.

  3. Embodied AI: Emerging Risks and Opportunities for Policy Action

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A policy analysis arguing that embodied AI risks are real, under-covered by current US/EU/UK frameworks, and best handled through certification, benchmarks, clarified liability, and economic adaptation.

  4. Agentic Web: Weaving the Next Web with AI Agents

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A position paper defines the Agentic Web as the next web era and proposes a three-dimensional conceptual framework for understanding and building it.

Pith tools