I was having an agent search for a set of skincare products to the lowest price within a certain budget, and a lot of sites just blocked it, so I ended up buying it from a site that didn't.
Monopoly/Duopoly-type companies like United can make decisions that hurt the consumer without a natural market backstop. This is when social norms need to come in as a backstop.
Another way this could go is simply that it is impossible to defend against an individual accessing services through the agents. Which I believe is already the case.
But entrenched interests in the existing organizations will see some real creative destruction as more consumer-friendly models outcompete them. In those cases, they reach for legislation. Which has been happening.
The public needs convincing, though. And that's why right now, the narrative is all about AI safety and protection from job loss.
Legislation to meet those worries would almost certainly be crafted to entrench the current organizations.
The real battle is not about jobs and safety. Personal agents would do more second-order good for the average person at the cost of a lot of 'capital destruction' - one of those newspeak words. The word here means that consumers no longer have to pay too much money - labor - for something because now they can get a better version of it for free/cheap.
GDP doesn't capture free things - as in beer or freedom.
AI has the potential to make a lot of things free in both senses. The entrenched are a headwind.
Will the agent represent the individual or the organization?
The only world that doesn't lead to accelerated manipulation, wealth inequality, and reduction human of freedom is the one where the answer absolutely clear: It is the individual.
The social norms for this is being shaped right now. This is the most important question in AI.
We're distracted by the far less important questions. Safety, nationalism, and tribalism are how we don't talk about this.
This is /the/ important question of our time.