analiza aiqbench
This paper analyzes the trajectory of agentic AI through historical precedents in ad blockers and robo-advisors, arguing that technical standardization often leads to "depoliticization" where individual user benefits come at the cost of collective contestation power. The authors highlight an emerging consolidation around specific protocols like Model Context Protocol, warning that closed governance structures could prematurely harden decisions about agent capabilities before public scrutiny can intervene.
Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Foreclosure?
arXiv:2608.06510v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agentic AI promises systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services. Whether it will empower users is an open question, and one that depends on more than the technology. We conduct a comparative case analysis of four earlier, more mature domains in which similar forms of agency emerged: browser-based ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam filtering. Across the cases, questions about whose interests agents would serve were resolved through technical arrangements: API choices, protocol governance, industry standards, and default configurations. Beyond their technical form, these were political decisions. We identify this settling of contestable questions in a technical form as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems. Its most consequential effect is that individual outcomes and collective contestation capacity can move in opposite directions: spam inbox quality improved substantially while the organized capacity to contest spam governance collapsed. Where intermediary institutions sustained formal channels for challenge, user-aligned agency proved more durable; where proprietary infrastructure and closed standard-setting absorbed contestation, the material basis for user-aligned alternatives was dismantled, and the loss proved hard to reverse. Applying this lens to agentic AI, we find a similar pattern forming: governance is consolidating around the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation, an industry-governed venue already deciding what agents will be able to do. Unlike in the completed trajectories, these decisions have not yet hardened, and remain open to challenge by users and the public.
Title:Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Foreclosure?
Abstract:Agentic AI promises systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services. Whether it will empower users is an open question, and one that depends on more than the technology. We conduct a comparative case analysis of four earlier, more mature domains in which similar forms of agency emerged: browser-based ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam filtering. Across the cases, questions about whose interests agents would serve were resolved through technical arrangements: API choices, protocol governance, industry standards, and default configurations. Beyond their technical form, these were political decisions. We identify this settling of contestable questions in a technical form as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems. Its most consequential effect is that individual outcomes and collective contestation capacity can move in opposite directions: spam inbox quality improved substantially while the organized capacity to contest spam governance collapsed. Where intermediary institutions sustained formal channels for challenge, user-aligned agency proved more durable; where proprietary infrastructure and closed standard-setting absorbed contestation, the material basis for user-aligned alternatives was dismantled, and the loss proved hard to reverse. Applying this lens to agentic AI, we find a similar pattern forming: governance is consolidating around the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation, an industry-governed venue already deciding what agents will be able to do. Unlike in the completed trajectories, these decisions have not yet hardened, and remain open to challenge by users and the public.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2608.06510 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2608.06510v2 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.06510 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 354 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026

AI should empower everyone, Meta argues in new philosophy
Quantum Zeitgeist · 1 sept. 2026
PowerBench: Measuring Language Model Bias in Power-shifting Requests
arXiv · 5 oct. 2026

Governance beyond security: knowledge, context & ontology on the lakehouse
Databricks · 3 sept. 2026