Decoding Agentic AI: A Guide to Autonomous Systems

After Stanford Law's agentic AI program, it was clear: companies are building autonomous capabilities faster than they can deploy them responsibly. This is part of a series exploring organizational frameworks that can keep pace with AI autonomy, which emerged from that program.

7 min read
Decoding Agentic AI: A Guide to Autonomous Systems

More Than Just an Assistant

You’ve probably interacted with an AI before—perhaps a chatbot that answered a question or a tool that generated an image. These systems are impressive, but they primarily respond to direct commands. Now, imagine an AI that not only responds but also acts. An AI that you can give a complex goal, like "book me a trip to New York," and it will research flights, compare hotels, and make the reservations, all on its own. This is the world of Agentic AI.

An agentic system is formally defined as a software program that uses an AI model to "interpret, plan, and execute a defined set of tasks with minimal or no human intervention." The keyword here is plan. Unlike a simple chatbot, an agent can create and follow a multi-step strategy to achieve a goal.

This leap in capability is so significant that this generation of AI is often compared to the advent of 'fire'—a tool that is incredibly powerful and transformative but also carries risks that must be carefully managed. This guide will explore both the immense power of agentic AI and the critical challenges we must navigate to harness it responsibly.

Three Concepts of Agentic AI

To understand agentic systems, we can break them down into three core characteristics. Each of these pillars defines what makes agents so powerful, but each also raises fundamental questions about how we should build and govern them.

Pillar The Core Question it Raises
Autonomy How much freedom should we give it, and who is responsible for its actions?
Affordances What tools, systems, and data should it be allowed to access and use?
Personalization How much should it know about us to be helpful, and at what cost to privacy?

Autonomy: The Power to Act

Autonomy is the capacity for an agent to perform actions on behalf of a user without constant supervision. This creates a fundamental trade-off. On one hand, we want to "give it maximum autonomy to free up" our time and mental energy. On the other hand, a user retains the "moral responsibility and liability if the agent doesn’t act consistent with the intent of the user."

This tension highlights a central design challenge for agentic AI:

"Many of us want to give it maximum autonomy... Yet, others might actually have concerns about that, and at what degree do you want to check in with the user."

Finding the right balance between independence and oversight is crucial for building systems that are both useful and trustworthy.

Affordances: The Tools it Can Wield

Affordances refer to the systems, tools, and data an agent is given access to. This is a critical concept because an agent's potential for both help and harm is directly tied to the tools it can wield.

An agent with limited affordances—say, access only to a public weather API—poses little risk. However, an agent granted access to your email, your online banking portal, and e-commerce sites has a vastly expanded capacity to act in the world. The scope of an agent's affordances directly impacts the "responsibilities and liability" associated with its actions, deciding what to grant it access to a critical security and ethical consideration.

Personalization: The Power of Knowing 'You'

Personalization is an agent's ability to learn and understand a user's unique preferences, habits, and goals, enabling it to be more helpful. This capability, however, introduces a significant privacy dilemma. This reflects a core privacy concern that "in order to have agents that exercise real responsibility on our behalf, it necessarily means that they're going to have to know a lot about your life."

This presents a clear and unavoidable trade-off:

  • The Benefit: A highly personalized agent can anticipate your needs and act more effectively. For example, it might know your preferred airline and seat type, booking it automatically without needing to ask for a preference you've shown dozens of times.
  • The Cost: This level of helpfulness requires the user to turn over vast amounts of personal data. This creates significant privacy risks, as sensitive information is collected and processed to enable the agent's customized behavior.

Understanding these three pillars—Autonomy, Affordances, and Personalization—is the first step to grasping the profound societal implications of this new technology.

The Ripple Effect: Navigating the Risks of a World with Agents

Because agents can act autonomously in the real world, they don't just create technical challenges; they create complex new puzzles for law, ethics, and society. Navigating this new landscape requires new ways of thinking about responsibility, trust, and safety.

The Liability Puzzle: Who's to Blame?

When an agentic system causes harm—such as booking the wrong flight, making an unauthorized purchase, or incurring a financial loss—the core problem becomes one of attribution. Who is legally and financially responsible?

Legal scholars agree that AI agents are not "legal persons," so they cannot be held liable themselves. Responsibility must be assigned to a human or an organization in the chain. This is far from simple. When an agent malfunctions, is there a parallel to when an employee deviates from their job duties and performs an unexpected action?

Assigning blame in a complex ecosystem with a model developer, a deployer, and an end-user is incredibly difficult. This challenge is similar to a famous California case, Summers v. Tice, where two people shot at the same time, and it was impossible to determine whose bullet injured a third person. Unable to assign specific blame, the court held them both liable. In the world of AI, courts may face a similar dilemma and simply decide to "make everybody liable."

The Trust Deficit: Can We Explain the "Black Box"?

The large language models (LLMs) that power many agents are often described as a "black box." Their internal decision-making processes are so complex that even their creators cannot fully explain why a model produces a specific output. This lack of transparency poses a major obstacle to building trust and ensuring accountability.

The problem is deeper than just a lack of visibility. Even proposed solutions, like having an AI generate its "chain of thought" to explain its reasoning, are fundamentally flawed. These explanations are themselves generated by an LLM and are therefore "subject to hallucination and all of the other problems of LLMs." This means that the very tools we might build to create transparency are themselves unreliable, making explainability a recursive and deeply challenging problem to solve.

If we can't understand how an agent made a decision, how can we trust it with important tasks? Furthermore, this opacity creates risks for people who may be interacting with an agent without even knowing it, raising critical concerns about the impact on third parties who are "unknowingly engaging with an agent that they didn't want to engage with."

The Search for Guardrails

Returning to the "AI as fire" analogy, just as society developed fire departments, building codes, and safety standards to manage fire, we will need to create new "guardrails" to manage agentic AI.

A powerful historical parallel can be found in Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Founded in the late 1800s by insurers, UL was created to independently test and certify the fire safety of electrical and building materials. Similarly, we may need independent bodies to certify the safety, reliability, and traceability of AI agents.

There is an ongoing debate about whether these standards should be universal or domain-specific. As the source material notes, customers in highly regulated fields, such as healthcare and financial services, demand different and often stricter standards than those in other domains.

These challenges of liability, trust, and safety demonstrate that our primary task is not just to build more powerful agents, but to establish the societal frameworks necessary to manage them.

Harnessing a New Kind of Power

As we stand at the dawn of the agentic age, it is essential to grasp the fundamental concepts that will shape our future with this technology. If you remember nothing else from this guide, hold on to these three key takeaways:

  1. It's About Planning, Not Just Responding: Agentic AI is defined by its unique ability to interpret a high-level goal, create a coherent plan, and execute that plan autonomously to achieve its objective.
  2. Every Capability is a Trade-Off: The core strengths of agentic AI—autonomy, affordances, and personalization—are double-edged. They offer incredible utility but come with inherent risks to liability, security, and personal privacy that must be carefully balanced.
  3. Responsibility is the Core Challenge: The central societal task ahead is not simply a technical one. It involves creating robust frameworks for attribution, trust, and safety to ensure that these powerful systems operate in ways that are aligned with human values and intentions.

Agentic AI is a powerful tool with the potential to reshape our world in countless ways. Its ultimate impact, will be determined not by the technology itself, but by the care, wisdom, and foresight with which we choose to wield it.

More Information from the Stanford Agentic AI porgtam:

#aiagents #productstrategy #aigovernance | Ken Priore
Your AI assistant just learned to make decisions without asking permission. Are you ready for what comes next? Six months ago, AI tools waited for your instructions. Today, they’re interpreting goals and executing multi-step plans. Tomorrow, they’ll be managing your calendar, booking your travel, and handling your purchases—all while you sleep. The speed of this transition is catching organizations off guard. Last week I spent the day at Stanford Law School’s “Harnessing Opportunities for Agentic AI” program, and the theme was clear: companies are building autonomous capabilities faster than they can figure out how to deploy them responsibly. The room was filled with legal and product leaders from major corporations, all wrestling with the same challenge. Their engineering teams are shipping agents that can act independently, but their organizational frameworks assume humans are always in the loop. What I heard repeatedly: “We have impressive demos, but we can’t move to production because we don’t know who’s accountable when the agent makes a decision we didn’t anticipate.” The legal reality driving this hesitation is that when an autonomous system causes harm and you can’t pinpoint exactly where the decision went wrong, courts may apply the Summers v. Tice principle—if attribution is impossible, everyone in the chain is held liable. That 1948 precedent is suddenly very relevant to AI. The challenge spans legal, technical, and business strategy domains. While some organizations remain stuck in endless pilot phases, others are finding ways to ship autonomous systems that users actually trust. Success requires frameworks that can adapt as AI autonomy evolves. The organizations moving from pilot to production have built systems that can handle decisions they didn’t directly program. Starting next week, I’m publishing a series that tackles exactly this challenge. We’ll explore how to build organizational frameworks that can keep pace with rapidly evolving AI autonomy—from technical architecture to business strategy to risk management. If you’re building autonomous AI systems or trying to deploy them at scale, these frameworks will help you move from pilot to production while the technology is still advancing. #AIAgents #ProductStrategy #AIGovernance