# Agentic AI: Autonomy, Accountability, and the Algorithmic Society

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00289 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00289/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [BetaWeb: Towards a Blockchain-enabled Trustworthy Agentic Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13787/) (2025)
- [Multi-Modal Data-Enhanced Foundation Models for Prediction and Control in Wireless Networks: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03181/) (2026)
- [Socio-technical aspects of Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06064/) (2025)
- [AgenticVM: Agentic AI for Adaptive Software Vulnerability Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01739/) (2026)
- [Synchronization Dynamics of Heterogeneous, Collaborative Multi-Agent AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12314/) (2025)
- [Will Power Return to the Clouds? From Divine Authority to GenAI Authority](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.03076/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) can autonomously pursue long-term goals, make decisions, and execute complex, multi-turn workflows. Unlike traditional generative AI, which responds reactively to prompts, agentic AI proactively orchestrates processes, such as autonomously managing complex tasks or making real-time decisions. This transition from advisory roles to proactive execution challenges established legal, economic, and creative frameworks. In this paper, we explore challenges in three interrelated domains: creativity and intellectual property, legal and ethical considerations, and competitive effects. Central to our analysis is the tension between novelty and usefulness in AI-generated creative outputs, as well as the intellectual property and authorship challenges arising from AI autonomy. We highlight gaps in responsibility attribution and liability that create a "moral crumple zone"--a condition where accountability is diffused across multiple actors, leaving end-users and developers in precarious legal and ethical positions. We examine the competitive dynamics of two-sided algorithmic markets, where both sellers and buyers deploy AI agents, potentially mitigating or amplifying tacit collusion risks. We explore the potential for emergent self-regulation within networks of agentic AI--the development of an "algorithmic society"--raising critical questions: To what extent would these norms align with societal values? What unintended consequences might arise? How can transparency and accountability be ensured? Addressing these challenges will necessitate interdisciplinary collaboration to redefine legal accountability, align AI-driven choices with stakeholder values, and maintain ethical safeguards. We advocate for frameworks that balance autonomy with accountability, ensuring all parties can harness agentic AI's potential while preserving trust, fairness, & societal welfare.