Can we please stop throwing an LLM in a chat UI and call it “agentic”?
True agentic systems are built with actual intelligence.
And no, I don't mean artificial intelligence or some special model. I mean well-architectured systems that 𝘥𝘰 things.
I've seen this pattern way too many times lately: slap GPT-4 into a chat interface, maybe add a system prompt, and suddenly it's marketed as an "agentic AI system."
That's not agentic. That's just... a chatbot.
𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰?
True 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗜 requires specific architectural components working together:
• 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 - The LLM needs to break down complex tasks, plan execution routes, and iterate on its approach. Not just respond to prompts.
• 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗨𝘀𝗲 - Access to actual external tools it can call and interact with. Function calling that lets the agent DO things, not just talk about them.
• 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 - Both short-term (conversation state) and long-term (learning from past interactions). This is where vector databases become essential.
• 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 - The ability to evaluate its own outputs, critique its reasoning, and adjust its approach.
Here's the thing: not every component needs to be present, but you need 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘓𝘓𝘔 to call something agentic.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀:
An "AI agent" = an end application built for a specific task (like a docs search assistant)
"Agentic AI" = a system designed with agentic components like decision-making, reasoning loops, tool orchestration.
A simple chat interface, even with a great LLM? 𝗡𝗼𝘁. 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰.
A system using a decision tree architecture, with tool access, memory, and iterative planning? Now we're talking.
IMHO, we need more precision in our terminology. The capabilities are genuinely impressive when built properly - let's not dilute the term by applying it to everything with a text box.
Ok rant over, thanks for coming to my TED talk ✌️