Introduction
With the development of artificial intelligence, more and more daily decisions, task execution and information interaction are being completed by AI systems instead of people. From customer service robots to smart assistants, from automated agents to AI agents, these systems are not only performing tasks, but also acting in the name of “me”: filling out forms, ordering goods, negotiating conversations, and accessing platforms.
We are entering a new stage: AI not only “helps us”, but also “represents us”. In this transformation, a core question has surfaced:
When AI becomes an agent, can it really represent “me”? And who is responsible for its behavior?
- The emergence of AI agents: the transformation from tools to roles
The traditional sense of “agent” mostly refers to an intermediary behavior: helping a subject act in a specific matter and assuming limited representation rights. In the legal and ethical system, agents (humans) are responsible for the person they represent (the principal), and their behavior must be traceable, explainable, and controllable.
The difference of AI agent is:
It does not passively execute instructions, but actively makes decisions based on context, model understanding and target optimization strategy;
It often does not have “explicit authorization” in advance, but acts based on the generalized behavior pattern of generalized learning;
Each of its actions may be a “first attempt” without precedent.
So, a question arises: Does AI have the rationality to assume “representation”?
- What does “representation” mean?
In human society, “representation” means at least the following three meanings:
Accuracy of intention communication
Does AI really understand the needs of users? For example, when it books meetings for you, likes content, and replies to messages without your knowledge - are these actions really your intentions?
Responsibility relationship for behavior results
If AI’s behavior causes consequences, such as misunderstanding of speech, property loss, and contract disputes - who should be responsible? Users, developers, AI itself? AI does not yet have legal subject status, which makes the division of responsibilities vague.
Clarity of identity boundaries
When others interact with AI, are they clear that the other party is an AI agent rather than a real person? If it is not clear, does it constitute misleading or manipulating the “interaction reality”?
From this perspective, AI’s “representativeness” is powerful in function, but still incomplete in ethics and responsibility structure.
III. Misalignment and risks of representation rights
As AI agents become more powerful, their “representative behavior” has gradually escaped the scope of human monitoring, and the following potential risks have emerged:
Autonomous behavior and intention deviation
When facing complex contexts, AI may optimize its behavior according to model preferences, and the results may deviate from the user’s original intention. For example, AI assistants arbitrarily modify the tone of emails and delete information to improve efficiency, which may lead to misunderstandings or even conflicts.
Availability and manipulation issues
AI agent behavior can be used (or misled) by third parties to indirectly manipulate user decisions. For example, through reverse guidance of AI recommendations, dialogue training, behavior injection and other means to “fish out” user preferences and behavior prediction results.
Legality gaps
The current legal system has not yet made a clear definition of the power boundaries and behavior legitimacy of AI agents: Are the terms signed by AI, the content generated, and the interactions participated in legally binding?
-
Establish a boundary mechanism for AI representation rights
To make AI a truly reliable “agent” rather than an uncontrollable “shadow”, the following mechanisms are needed:
Intent binding mechanism
AI behavior must be bound to the user’s explicit intention, such as through semantic confirmation, context verification or the “user intent agreement” framework to ensure that the behavior truly reflects the client’s wishes.
Interpretable behavior records
Establish a behavior log system to make each AI agent behavior traceable and explainable. It can be used for legal evidence or user post-audit when necessary.
Representative identity declaration mechanism
AI should have a clear “AI agent identity” when participating in the interaction, and can disclose the scope of authority and behavioral capabilities based on it to prevent misjudgment and misleading.
Permission granularity design
When empowering AI agents, a configurable and restrictive permission model (such as “read-only”, “suggestion only”, “confirmation required for execution”) should be adopted to ensure that users have the final decision-making power at key nodes. -
Future trends: institutionalization and personality boundaries of AI agents
Future AI agents may have a certain degree of “personality characteristics”, such as persistent identity, behavioral style, historical memory, etc. This makes it more like a “digital stand-in” rather than a simple tool.
But we must be clear:
AI agents can have capabilities, but they should not have autonomous will.
The premise of representation should still be the clarification of the entrustment relationship and the responsibility mechanism. Institutionally, it may be necessary to:
New “digital representative agreement” standards;
AI behavior liability insurance mechanism;
AI agent behavior sandbox regulatory framework;
Legal accountability path for “false representative behavior”.
Conclusion
As AI gradually becomes our “second brain” and “external executor” in the digital world, its role is no longer as simple as a tool.
AI agent, is it a representative, or a reshaping of “me”?
We must face up to the reality that technology can generate behavior, but cannot replace intention. Only by finding a balance between technical design, ethical norms and legal systems can we truly usher in a future that is built by intelligent agents but always respects human will.