The fact that you’ve never heard of it before does not make it a novel word. Unless you define “novel” as a technical term that has been in use since the early 1970s… 🙄
Please, take your time. Re-read (well, actually read it for the first time I guess) and tell me where I said ‘agentic’ was a fake word.
Your own citation did not have agentic in it. Agent <> agentic.
And you’re clinging hard to singular notion that because a mouth-sound with the same letter order existed nearly 200 years ago, it means the same thing as the modern usage
No, I’m stating the plain, undeniable fact that this word has been used to describe a specific type of software program (which, for the record, has nothing to do with AI besides that sometimes AI programs are an example of it) for over 50 years, and is not a new term.
I’ve already provided multiple examples of its use that predate LLMs. Your attempt at trolling is thwarted.
Sorry, but facts (which I’ve provided with sources) prove that I’m correct. The discussion ends there, as there is nothing else to say about it and nothing that you can refute. Agentic software has existed since the 70s.
Technological speak isn’t colloquial every day language. Other industries simply aren’t taken to forcing industry terms into the general populace.
Use of the word agentic in everyday language is novel and marketing intentful.
Just because I say with peers that a leaf is cordate, sinistrose, and estipulate with a hirsute abaxial surface doesn’t mean anyone in science journalism will use those terms. They use colloquial language like the leaf is heart-shaped, spirally arranged, without a stem, and with small hairs on the underside because these terms make broad sense to the public.
So, let me make sure I understand your position, you’re mad that people are correctly using a technical term that has existed for over 50 years and think they should use a different word because you personally did not know that word before? Okie dokie. 🤷
Would you rather we just call every type of software an “app”?
The fact that you’ve never heard of it before does not make it a novel word. Unless you define “novel” as a technical term that has been in use since the early 1970s… 🙄
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/process-a-mathematical-model-of-computing-agents/
^ published 1975.
Bruh slow down on the “ahktually” and read what you’re putting out there lmao
Lol. The word “agentic” has been used since 1864. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=agentic&year_start=1800&year_end=2025
You’re wrong.
Please, take your time. Re-read (well, actually read it for the first time I guess) and tell me where I said ‘agentic’ was a fake word.
Your own citation did not have agentic in it. Agent <> agentic.
And you’re clinging hard to singular notion that because a mouth-sound with the same letter order existed nearly 200 years ago, it means the same thing as the modern usage
No, I’m stating the plain, undeniable fact that this word has been used to describe a specific type of software program (which, for the record, has nothing to do with AI besides that sometimes AI programs are an example of it) for over 50 years, and is not a new term.
I’ve already provided multiple examples of its use that predate LLMs. Your attempt at trolling is thwarted.
“Hey, uhh your own chosen citation doesn’t support your argument” is trolling now? God I hope you don’t work in education or research 😂
You defending ‘words mean things’ whilst re-re-redefining trolling to mean ‘any kind of feedback I don’t like’ is precious
Sorry, but facts (which I’ve provided with sources) prove that I’m correct. The discussion ends there, as there is nothing else to say about it and nothing that you can refute. Agentic software has existed since the 70s.
Blocked, go troll someone else now. Buh-bye!
Technological speak isn’t colloquial every day language. Other industries simply aren’t taken to forcing industry terms into the general populace.
Use of the word agentic in everyday language is novel and marketing intentful.
Just because I say with peers that a leaf is cordate, sinistrose, and estipulate with a hirsute abaxial surface doesn’t mean anyone in science journalism will use those terms. They use colloquial language like the leaf is heart-shaped, spirally arranged, without a stem, and with small hairs on the underside because these terms make broad sense to the public.
So, let me make sure I understand your position, you’re mad that people are correctly using a technical term that has existed for over 50 years and think they should use a different word because you personally did not know that word before? Okie dokie. 🤷
Would you rather we just call every type of software an “app”?