Agentic AI is just a buzzword for letting AI do things without human supervision. It's absolutely a recipe for disaster. You should never let AI do anything you can't easily undo as it's guaranteed to screw it up at least part of the time. When all it's screwing up is telling you that glue would make an excellent topping for pizza that's one thing, but when it's emailing your boss that he's a piece of crap that's an entirely different scenario.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
54 points (95.0% liked)
Technology
76868 readers
2200 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Agentic AI is just a buzzword for letting AI do things without human supervision
No, it isn't.
As per IBM https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/agentic-ai
Agentic AI is an artificial intelligence system that can accomplish a specific goal with limited supervision. It consists of AI agents—machine learning models that mimic human decision-making to solve problems in real time. In a multiagent system, each agent performs a specific subtask required to reach the goal and their efforts are coordinated through AI orchestration.
The key part being the last sentence.
Its the idea of moving away from a monolithic (for simplicity's sake) LLM into one where each "AI" serves a specific purpose. So imagine a case where you have one "AI" to parse your input text and two or three other "AI" to run different models based upon what use case your request falls into. The result is MUCH smaller models (that can often be colocated on the same physical GPU or even CPU) that are specialized rather than an Everything model that can search the internet, fail at doing math, and tell you you look super sexy in that minecraft hat.
And... anyone who has ever done any software development (web or otherwise) can tell you: That is just (micro)services. Especially when so many of the "agents" aren't actually LLMs and are just bare metal code or databases or what have you. Just like how any Senior engineer worth their salt can point out that isn't fundamentally different than calling a package/library instead of rolling your own solution for every component.
The idea of supervision remains the same. Some orgs care about it. Others don't. Just like some orgs care about making maintainable code and others don't. And one of the bigger buzz words these days is "human in the loop" to specifically provide supervision/training data.
But yes, it is very much a buzzword.
Hat on top of a hat technology. The underlying problems with LLMs remain unchanged, and “agentic AI” is basically a marketing term to make people think those problems are solved. I realize you probably know this, I’m just kvetching.
Not really. By breaking down the problem you can adjust the models to the task. There is a lot of work going into this stuff and there are ways to turn down the randomness to get more consistent outputs for simple tasks.
turn down the randomness to get more consistent outputs for simple tasks.
This is a tricky one... if you can define good success/failure criteria, then the randomness coupled with an accurate measure of success, is how "AI" like Alpha Go learns to win games, really really well.
In using AI to build computer programs and systems, if you have good tests for what "success" looks like, you'd rather have a fair amount of randomness in the algorithms trying to make things work because when they don't and they fail, they end up stuck, out of ideas.
You're both right imo. LLMs and every subsequent improvement are fundamentally ruined by marketing heads like oh so many things in the history of computing, so even if agentic AI is actually an improvement, it doesn't matter because everyone is using it to do stupid fucking things.
Yeah like stringing 5 chatgpt's together saying "you are scientist you are product lead engineer etc" is dumb but stringing together chatgpt into a coded tool into a vision model into a specific small time LLM is an interesting new way to build workflows for complex and dynamic tasks.
The way I see Agentic AI is it's just a dumber customer service agent that is ready and willing to be scammed and phished. Not my fault if these companies are too stupid to put in proper guardrails.
I agree with you. I don't mind local AI searching the web for topics I'm interested in and providing me with news and interesting tidbits. I'm not OK with AI having any kind of permission to run executable code.
I think there's a difference between letting it do somethings and letting it finish something.
It shouldn't be the one clicking the send button because everything needs to be verified, but it's fine to have it surf the internet or turn a request into a set number of tasks with a to-do list.
Writing an email with it is a no-go for me though, I avoid it the moment it comes to actually communicating with someone. Using AI strikes me as patronizing.
It's Argo Workflows
The best way to deal with Agentic AI is to ignore it until it goes away. That's my strategy. 🙅♂️🫣😖
May I join you?
Hop on in, water's still warm.
"People are over-trusting [AI] and taking their responses on face value without digging in and making sure that it's not just some hallucination that's coming up.
So very, very much this. I see people taking AI responses at face value all the time. Look at the number of lawyers that have submitted briefs containing AI hallucinated citations and been reprimanded for them, for example.
And it's not just stupid people either. Even smart and educated people get lulled into a false sense of security by a few correct answers to easy questions.
In a way this has happened before (people trusting stuff on social media, trusting bad headlines from bad newspapers, ...), but AI is this on steroids.
That’s because their bosses want them to use ai somehow. So here’s the result.