What Do We Need for an Agentic Society?
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866917384129871872 |
|---|---|
| author | Ko, Kwon Jin, Hyoungwook |
| author_facet | Ko, Kwon Jin, Hyoungwook |
| contents | Thirty years ago, Wooldridge and Jennings defined intelligent agents through four properties: autonomy, reactivity, pro-activeness, and social ability. Today, advances in AI can empower everyday objects to become such intelligent agents. We call such objects agentic objects and envision that they can form an agentic society: a collective agentic environment that perceives patterns, makes judgments, and takes actions that no single object could achieve alone. However, individual capability does not guarantee coordination. Through an illustrative scenario of a teenager experiencing bullying and depression, we demonstrate both the promise of coordination and its failure modes: false positives that destroy trust, deadlocks that prevent action, and adversarial corruption that poisons judgment. These failures reveal open questions spanning three phases: what to share, how to judge, and when to act. These questions chart a research agenda for building agentic societies. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_03938 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | What Do We Need for an Agentic Society? Ko, Kwon Jin, Hyoungwook Human-Computer Interaction Thirty years ago, Wooldridge and Jennings defined intelligent agents through four properties: autonomy, reactivity, pro-activeness, and social ability. Today, advances in AI can empower everyday objects to become such intelligent agents. We call such objects agentic objects and envision that they can form an agentic society: a collective agentic environment that perceives patterns, makes judgments, and takes actions that no single object could achieve alone. However, individual capability does not guarantee coordination. Through an illustrative scenario of a teenager experiencing bullying and depression, we demonstrate both the promise of coordination and its failure modes: false positives that destroy trust, deadlocks that prevent action, and adversarial corruption that poisons judgment. These failures reveal open questions spanning three phases: what to share, how to judge, and when to act. These questions chart a research agenda for building agentic societies. |
| title | What Do We Need for an Agentic Society? |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03938 |