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 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.
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.
Sorry, but facts (which I’ve provided with sources) prove that I’m correct. The discussion ends there, as there is nothing else to say about it and nothing that you can refute. Agentic software has existed since the 70s.
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.
It’s novel but not wrong. Plenty of technical terms have inserted themselves into our language over time. I can think of bandwidth and logistics at the top of my head. Catalyst feels very technical as well. Logistics started as military jargon and is brought over from French.
Just thought of Segway as well. Not sure if it started as technical jargon but it’s definitely some weird bastardization.
It seems pretty clear that it came to prominence last year, so it’s novel now for the majority of the population even though it used to be technical jargon, which is exactly my point.
Im not sure if anybody was using specifically the word “agentic” 50 year ago for software, although it clearly was used in other context from the link. I’m guessing they were mostly saying software agent and the “ic” at the end is relatively new.
I genuinely though segue was spelled like the brand name. I guess you learn something new everyday.
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”?
“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.
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 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.
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.
“Hey, uhh your own chosen citation doesn’t support your argument” is trolling now? God I hope you don’t work in education or research 😂
You defending ‘words mean things’ whilst re-re-redefining trolling to mean ‘any kind of feedback I don’t like’ is precious
Sorry, but facts (which I’ve provided with sources) prove that I’m correct. The discussion ends there, as there is nothing else to say about it and nothing that you can refute. Agentic software has existed since the 70s.
Blocked, go troll someone else now. Buh-bye!
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.
It’s novel but not wrong. Plenty of technical terms have inserted themselves into our language over time. I can think of bandwidth and logistics at the top of my head. Catalyst feels very technical as well. Logistics started as military jargon and is brought over from French.
Just thought of Segway as well. Not sure if it started as technical jargon but it’s definitely some weird bastardization.
It isn’t wrong but that doesn’t make it a good word or the right word.
No, it’s not novel. It’s use to describe a specific type of software program is over 50 years old…
Also… umm… do you mean the word “segue”? 🤦
Okay, everyone except you is talking specifically about the word agentic and not agent.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/agentic
It seems pretty clear that it came to prominence last year, so it’s novel now for the majority of the population even though it used to be technical jargon, which is exactly my point.
Im not sure if anybody was using specifically the word “agentic” 50 year ago for software, although it clearly was used in other context from the link. I’m guessing they were mostly saying software agent and the “ic” at the end is relatively new.
I genuinely though segue was spelled like the brand name. I guess you learn something new everyday.
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”?
“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.
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