Because actor is an establish paradigm and that has been around for a while. I haven't heard Hickey's talk on "agents" but based on your description, how are agents radically different?

What stops actors from reading the snapshots of the world? They can 1) subscribe to "world" actor and get publication when it changes or 2) if database is immutable (I guess you are hinting at Datomic or Clojure's datastructures here?) an actor can also call a function. Remember actors in practice are there to help isolate concurrency contexts. Reading truly immutable data is safe so actors could just periodically read this immutable data (just think of the database a function). It would be awkward having to process messages from mailbox, timing out, then reading world state, process world state, going back to processing messages. Etc. I like 1) better.

> the actor has to define its behavior.

How does an agent bypass defining its behavior? Doesn't an agent have a piece of code that specifies what that agent does.

> and send transformation functions on the data of that specific agent, which will be then processed by the agent's thread in an ordered way.

So this basically centralizes the state of all the agents in one central location that is an immutable database? Hmm interesting. It is a different way of looking it at it I guess. Each actor usually handles its own internal state privately. I guess we also assume that there is something underneath that constantly distributes all these incrementing tree of states across a whole system. I don't know I would rather think of actors explicitly choosing to send their state to a system half way across the world rather than rely on another layer of distributing state. Maybe it is just a matter of a mental model here...