An “agent” is specific a type of software that long predates LLMs and this go-round of AI hype.
One example of an agent is a computer program that reads log data of another program and forwards the log data to a log management server. Another example of an agent is an LLM chatbot that can perform actions on its own.
Not all agents are chatbots, and not all chatbots are agents.
I never said agent is a new word, but thanks for telling me I’m wrong.
Assistive, aid, helpful are all words that could be used in place of the word agentic. It feels inauthentic and fluffy because it is.
I’ve never heard of agentic before because it is novel word marketing bullshit. Like IoT before it and many others, words existed to explain the technology in plain language but industry gargon takes hold and isn’t interrogated for being cold, non-inclusive and confusing.
The fact that you’ve never heard of it before does not make it a novel word. Unless you define “novel” as a technical term that has been in use since the early 1970s… 🙄
Please, take your time. Re-read (well, actually read it for the first time I guess) and tell me where I said ‘agentic’ was a fake word.
Your own citation did not have agentic in it. Agent <> agentic.
And you’re clinging hard to singular notion that because a mouth-sound with the same letter order existed nearly 200 years ago, it means the same thing as the modern usage
No, I’m stating the plain, undeniable fact that this word has been used to describe a specific type of software program (which, for the record, has nothing to do with AI besides that sometimes AI programs are an example of it) for over 50 years, and is not a new term.
I’ve already provided multiple examples of its use that predate LLMs. Your attempt at trolling is thwarted.
Technological speak isn’t colloquial every day language. Other industries simply aren’t taken to forcing industry terms into the general populace.
Use of the word agentic in everyday language is novel and marketing intentful.
Just because I say with peers that a leaf is cordate, sinistrose, and estipulate with a hirsute abaxial surface doesn’t mean anyone in science journalism will use those terms. They use colloquial language like the leaf is heart-shaped, spirally arranged, without a stem, and with small hairs on the underside because these terms make broad sense to the public.
So, let me make sure I understand your position, you’re mad that people are correctly using a technical term that has existed for over 50 years and think they should use a different word because you personally did not know that word before? Okie dokie. 🤷
Would you rather we just call every type of software an “app”?
The wikipedia article that I already linked is another example that proves that you are wrong.
The article has existed since January 14 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_agent&oldid=2149104 here is the very first version of the wikipedia article on Software agents, which does not even mention AI and lists software like a mail transfer agent or software daemons.
“So you’re just wrong” says the guy who doesn’t understand that “agent” and “agentic” are different words. One is a real word you can find in a dictionary with a long history of use. The other one is a neologism obviously referencing and created out of the other word, using a tortured conjugation process that only a marketer could love. We’re talking about the latter word while you’re busy defending the former word. They’re not the same word.
It’s only meaning is to management, and is some kind of horseshit way of saying “less employees to pay”
Words for it already exist. Its whole purpose is marketing and AI fart huffing.
So, you’re just wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent
An “agent” is specific a type of software that long predates LLMs and this go-round of AI hype.
One example of an agent is a computer program that reads log data of another program and forwards the log data to a log management server. Another example of an agent is an LLM chatbot that can perform actions on its own.
Not all agents are chatbots, and not all chatbots are agents.
I never said agent is a new word, but thanks for telling me I’m wrong.
Assistive, aid, helpful are all words that could be used in place of the word agentic. It feels inauthentic and fluffy because it is.
I’ve never heard of agentic before because it is novel word marketing bullshit. Like IoT before it and many others, words existed to explain the technology in plain language but industry gargon takes hold and isn’t interrogated for being cold, non-inclusive and confusing.
Because it was an idea floating around before but it never worked out and they never spoke about it afterwards.
The fact that you’ve never heard of it before does not make it a novel word. Unless you define “novel” as a technical term that has been in use since the early 1970s… 🙄
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/process-a-mathematical-model-of-computing-agents/
^ published 1975.
Bruh slow down on the “ahktually” and read what you’re putting out there lmao
Lol. The word “agentic” has been used since 1864. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=agentic&year_start=1800&year_end=2025
You’re wrong.
Please, take your time. Re-read (well, actually read it for the first time I guess) and tell me where I said ‘agentic’ was a fake word.
Your own citation did not have agentic in it. Agent <> agentic.
And you’re clinging hard to singular notion that because a mouth-sound with the same letter order existed nearly 200 years ago, it means the same thing as the modern usage
No, I’m stating the plain, undeniable fact that this word has been used to describe a specific type of software program (which, for the record, has nothing to do with AI besides that sometimes AI programs are an example of it) for over 50 years, and is not a new term.
I’ve already provided multiple examples of its use that predate LLMs. Your attempt at trolling is thwarted.
Technological speak isn’t colloquial every day language. Other industries simply aren’t taken to forcing industry terms into the general populace.
Use of the word agentic in everyday language is novel and marketing intentful.
Just because I say with peers that a leaf is cordate, sinistrose, and estipulate with a hirsute abaxial surface doesn’t mean anyone in science journalism will use those terms. They use colloquial language like the leaf is heart-shaped, spirally arranged, without a stem, and with small hairs on the underside because these terms make broad sense to the public.
So, let me make sure I understand your position, you’re mad that people are correctly using a technical term that has existed for over 50 years and think they should use a different word because you personally did not know that word before? Okie dokie. 🤷
Would you rather we just call every type of software an “app”?
The wikipedia article that I already linked is another example that proves that you are wrong.
The article has existed since January 14 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_agent&oldid=2149104 here is the very first version of the wikipedia article on Software agents, which does not even mention AI and lists software like a mail transfer agent or software daemons.
“So you’re just wrong” says the guy who doesn’t understand that “agent” and “agentic” are different words. One is a real word you can find in a dictionary with a long history of use. The other one is a neologism obviously referencing and created out of the other word, using a tortured conjugation process that only a marketer could love. We’re talking about the latter word while you’re busy defending the former word. They’re not the same word.
Welp, you tried! https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=agentic&year_start=1800&year_end=2025 the word “agentic” has been in use since 1864. Just wrong.
So has the word “schmoo”, however, we don’t find it in widespread enough use to be considered part of normal language.
Relevance? What does that prove?
Seems like now you’re just upset that a concept that has existed for over 50 years is becoming popular and commonly used.
The OP’s thread you are entering into is talking about the word agenetic.
See even autocorrect from the very companies shovelling it down our throats can’t get it right because it is a fake novel marketing word.
Yes, that is correct. Glad we are on the same page