> But in the context of AI, Agent as Anthropic defines it is an appropriate word because it is a thing that has agency.
That seems circular.
It would only be circular if agency was only defined as “the property of being an agent”. That circle of reasoning isn’t being proposed as the formal definitions by anyone.
Perhaps you mean tautological. In which case, an agent having agency would be an informal tautology. A relationship so basic to the subject matter that it essentially must be true. Which would be the strongest possible type of argument.
Sort of interesting that we've coalesced on this term that has many definitions, sometimes conflicting, but where many of the definitions vaguely fit into what an "AI Agent" could be for a given person.
But in the context of AI, Agent as Anthropic defines it is an appropriate word because it is a thing that has agency.