Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Enclosure?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06510v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 18:49:13 GMT
• Title: Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Enclosure?
• Abstract summary: We argue that the answer to whether Agentic AI will empower users is an open question.<n>We conduct a comparative case analysis of four more mature domains where similar forms of agency arose.<n>We identify this as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems.
• Score: 3.9727752701702728
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Agentic AI promises a more flexible form of digital agency: systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services. Whether it will empower users is an open question, and we argue that the answer depends on more than the technology. We conduct a comparative case analysis of four more mature domains where similar forms of agency arose: browser-based ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam governance. Across the cases, decisions about whose interests agents would serve were resolved through technical arrangements: API choices, protocol governance, industry standards, and default configurations. Beyond their technical form, these were political decisions. We identify this as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems. Its most consequential effect is that individual outcomes and collective contestation capacity can move in opposite directions: spam inbox quality improved substantially while the organized capacity to contest spam governance collapsed. Where intermediary institutions sustained adversarial challenge, user-aligned agency proved more durable; where proprietary infrastructure and closed standard-setting absorbed contestation, displacement compounded. We apply this to agentic AI, where governance arrangements consolidating around the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation are settling these configurations before the choices that define what agents can do move outside the reach of users and the public.

Related papers

• Poisoning Agentic Alpha: Adversarial Vulnerabilities Across Roles and Architectures in Multi-Agent Trading Systems [103.90831279037094]
  LLM-based multi-agent trading systems are moving rapidly from research prototypes to live deployments that control real assets.<n>A corrupted signal can propagate to the final decision and translate into realized financial loss.<n>We present the first systematic empirical study in the financial domain to characterize how an adversarial signal enters a multi-agent trading system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T05:07:37Z)
• Accountability Asymmetry and Structural Trust in Autonomous AI Systems [0.16946842589920252]
  An AI system remains subject to engineering control, but it does not bear consequences in that institutional sense.<n>The deeper problem is that consequence lands on the people and institutions responsible for the system rather than on the component selecting the action.<n>This paper therefore treats autonomous AI governance as a problem of infrastructure reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T13:47:54Z)
• How Agents Ask for Permission: User Permissions for AI Agents, from Interfaces to Enforcement [55.966820779528376]
  As AI agents gain prevalence, users are increasingly exposed to the risks such systems entail.<n> Prompt injection attacks, as well as hallucination, can cause agents to leak private information to third parties.<n>As autonomous systems, agents present the more active danger of performing sensitive tasks, such as bank transactions, without the user's intent or authorization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-15T11:36:22Z)
• Who Decides What Is Harmful? Content Moderation Policy Through A Multi-Agent Personalised Inference Framework [0.0]
  This paper proposes an LLM-based multi-agent personalised inference framework that filters content based on sensitivity unique profiles of individual users.<n>Our architecture combines domain-specific Expert Agents, a Manager Agent for orchestrating content analysis and agent selection, and a Ghost Profile Agent for simulating user perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T12:28:09Z)
• When Agents Evolve, Institutions Follow [52.359340707289114]
  We argue that multi-agent systems built on large language models face the same challenge.<n>Their central problem is not only individual intelligence, but collective organization.<n>We translate seven historical political institutions, spanning four canonical governance patterns, into executable multi-agent architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T10:30:58Z)
• Behavioural feasible set: Value alignment constraints on AI decision support [4.770039226643351]
  When organisations adopt commercial AI systems for decision support, they inherit value embedded by vendors that are neither transparent nor renegotiable.<n>I formalise this as a feasible set, the range of recommendations reachable under vendor-imposed alignment constraints, and characterise diagnostic thresholds for when organisational requirements exceed the system's flexibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-22T22:52:42Z)
• On the Regulatory Potential of User Interfaces for AI Agent Governance [27.951021158233587]
  We propose regulating user interfaces of AI agents as a way of enforcing transparency and behavioral requirements.<n>We analyze 22 existing agentic systems to identify UI elements that play key roles in human-agent interaction and communication.<n>Our work exposes a new surface for regulatory action that supplements previous proposals for practical AI agent governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T05:32:13Z)
• DAO-AI: Evaluating Collective Decision-Making through Agentic AI in Decentralized Governance [7.230919380272301]
  This paper presents a first empirical study of agentic AI as autonomous decision-makers in decentralized governance.<n>We build an agentic AI voter that interprets proposal contexts, retrieves historical deliberation data, and independently determines its voting position.<n>The study contributes to the design of explainable and economically rigorous AI agents for decentralized financial systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T03:13:14Z)
• When Autonomy Goes Rogue: Preparing for Risks of Multi-Agent Collusion in Social Systems [78.04679174291329]
  We introduce a proof-of-concept to simulate the risks of malicious multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>We apply this framework to two high-risk fields: misinformation spread and e-commerce fraud.<n>Our findings show that decentralized systems are more effective at carrying out malicious actions than centralized ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T15:17:30Z)
• Agentic AI: Autonomy, Accountability, and the Algorithmic Society [0.2209921757303168]
  Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) can autonomously pursue long-term goals, make decisions, and execute complex, multi-turn.<n>This transition from advisory roles to proactive execution challenges established legal, economic, and creative frameworks.<n>We explore challenges in three interrelated domains: creativity and intellectual property, legal and ethical considerations, and competitive effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T03:14:59Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Users are the North Star for AI Transparency [111.5679109784322]
  Despite widespread calls for transparent artificial intelligence systems, the term is too overburdened with disparate meanings to express precise policy aims or to orient concrete lines of research. Part of why this happens is that a clear ideal of AI transparency goes unsaid in this body of work. We explicitly name such a north star -- transparency that is user-centered, user-appropriate, and honest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-09T18:53:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.