We already have a "user agent" as a term for software (browsers, curl, etc.) that fetches web content on behalf of a user. It predates current AI agents by a few decades. I don't think it has much agency either, but here we are (were?).

As for anthropomorphizing software - we've been doing it for a long time. We have software that reads and writes data. Originally those were things that only humans did. But over time these words gained another meaning.

You’re too late. “Agent” already has a new definition in the dictionary, specifically for software.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent

And it’s not like all of the other definitions were restricted to “human agency”.

Your agency lets you choose the words you use.

What evidence is there that humans have any more agency than Markov Chain bots with lots more inputs?

> How about we stop calling things without agency agents?

> Code generators are useful software.

How about we stop baking praise for the object of criticism into our critique.

No one is hearing your criticism.

They hear "Code generators are useful software" and go on with their day.

If you want to make your point effectively, stop kowtowing to our AI overlords.

If you don't think code generators are useful, that's fine.

I think code generators are useful, but that one of the trade-offs of using them is that it encourages people to anthropomorphize the software because they are also prose generators. I'm arguing that these two functions don't necessarily need to be bundled.