What Is an AI Agent?

**Host:** Today, we're discussing one of the busiest and most confusing terms in AI right now: agents. Are they just fancy wrappers around LLMs, full-blown autonomous workers, or something in between? A16Z Info Partners Guido Appenzeller, Matt Bornstein, and Yoko Li break down the technical definitions, pricing models, use cases, and why the term "agent" means so many different things to different people. If you're building, buying, or just curious about what agents are and aren't, this episode is for you. Let's get into it.

**Host:** [Link to investments] Please see a16z.com forward slash disclosures.

**Guido Appenzeller:** I think there's some things which are probably kind of easy to say, which is that, A, there's a good amount of disagreement. What is an agent? We've heard a lot of different definitions of it on the technical side as well, I'd say on the marketing and sales side in some cases, because there's some sales models associated with it. So let's start with the technical side. I think there's sort of a continuum here. You know, the simplest thing that I've heard being called an agent is basically just a clever prompt on top of some kind of knowledge base or some kind of context that has this sort of a chat type interface. So from a user's perspective, this looks like a human agent would look like, right? So for example, I ask it, hey, I have a technical problem with my product XYZ. It looks at the knowledge base and comes back with a canned response. But there doesn't have to be a knowledge base, right? It doesn't even have to be a knowledge base. I see. Got it. Okay. So maybe it's just a trained model. It's all in the model way. It's the knowledge. So it's even simpler. So an agent could just be an LLM. But the chat interface or something like that, by some definition, right? I think on the other end of the spectrum, there are some people who basically say for something to be a real agent, it has to be something probably close to AGI, right? It needs to persist over long periods of time. It needs to be able to learn. It needs to have a knowledge base. It needs to work independently on problems. If you take the most extensive definition, is it fair to say that doesn't work yet? I think so. It doesn't work yet. Will it ever work? That's a philosophical question.

**Matt Bornstein:** All right. Fair. Very fair. So if we take that continuum in between, is that at least a way to chop that up into a couple of categories of maybe degrees of agentic behavior? And different types of agents. There's some artsy agents that help artists come up with new, busier curves. There's coding agents, which we like to talk about as the agent of the day. Yeah, which we use. There's agents that are just a wraparound type of LLMs. That's right, yeah. I may be the contrarian in this group. All right. Look, I kind of think agent is just a word for AI applications, right? Anything that uses AI kind of can be an agent now.

**Yoko Li:** Before we started this talk, I actually went online just to refresh myself about some of the more interesting AI agent perspectives out there. I found a really cool talk from Karpathy that he gave a couple of years ago about agents, which I can describe a little bit. But the really funny part was on the YouTube recommended videos to watch next. It's like AI agents are going to revolutionize your lifestyle and the rise of super intelligent AI, you know, it's just kind of like marketing. And so I actually do think that's what's going on in a lot of ways. The cleanest definition I've seen of an agent is just something that does complex planning and something that interacts with outside systems. The problem with that definition is all LLMs now do both of those things, right? They have built-in planning in many cases, and they at least consume information, you know, at least from the internet, maybe from some servers that expose information through MCP or some other protocol. So the line really is very blurry. And, you know, what was so interesting about the Karpathy talk is he basically related to autonomous vehicles and said, AI agents are a real problem, but it's like a 10-year problem. It's like a decade problem that we need to work on. And I think most of what we're seeing in the market now is like, is not the decade version of this problem. It's like the weekend demo version of this problem. And this is why we sort of generate so much confusion. You have this kind of poorly defined nebulous thing that LLMs are kind of consuming themselves over time. And so I don't think anything we have are actually agents. And agent itself may be a poorly defined and kind of overloaded term. But if someone's willing to do the hard work and define exactly what it's like to kind of be a human but in digital form and spend 10 years to make it actually work, that's sort of what I'm excited to see.

**Guido Appenzeller:** Okay. So defining agents is a difficult job. Maybe it's easier to talk about how people use the tools they call agents and what are the differing degrees of agentic behavior. I wonder if part of the conversation is redefining agents, because we all know that agent as a term is just not a great term. It means so many things to so many people. If it's interesting to dissect, like, what do we mean? What do different people mean when they say agents? What are different ways we could utilize this process we call agents? So it seems to me that if we're trying to define agents or maybe even degrees of agentic behavior, which might be a little easier, there's something like a user interface aspect to it, right? Where something that's a pure copilot, but basically user goes back and forth with an LM to work on a particular task that's often not called an agent. Is that fair? There's a little bit the copilots versus agents UI models. Yeah, I guess what are the elements we would think that goes into agentic behavior? Like Matt mentioned, planning could be one. There could be decisions made by the agent. There has to be LLM somewhere. But curious about your take.

**Matt Bornstein:** I think another definition we heard from Anthropic recently was this idea that an agent is an LLM running in a loop with tool use. Right? Which there's two important parts of that. One is this notion that it's not just a single prompt and not even just a single static sequence of prompts, right? But something where the LLM takes the output of a prompt, feeds it back into itself, and based on that makes decisions on what the next prompt and likely also went to abort, like you went to complete a task. I think that for the real agents or the more agentic behaviors, I think that's a reasonably good definition. And I think the other thing... But just by that definition, isn't every chatbot effectively an agent then in this world, right? Like if I go just to chatgpt.com and use their latest reasoning model with web search, isn't it using tools and feeding its outputs into a new prompt in order to do kind of chain of thought? Chain of thought is a little bit in between. If it's just a single prompt that comes back with a result, then it wouldn't have this notion of planning and doing a more long-term concept and deciding itself when it is complete, right? If you have a chain of thought reasoning where I'm given a more complex task, that's starting to look agetic, I agree. I just think it's really tough to define a system based on what someone says to it, right? Because these are, by design, unstructured inputs. These systems will accept literally anything. And so sure, if you tell it, hey, what's today's weather, I would agree that's not agetic, right? That's just fetching, you know, from an API. If you ask it to define a new philosophy of weather, right, it'll happily go do it, right? So it's like an agent if you ask it one thing, but not an agent if you ask it another thing. I think that's kind of a lot of the confusion in the market around this. And if we spoke in the terms that you're talking about, Guido, of like, hey, this is an LLM in a loop with a tool, that's actually a much more productive way to talk about it, I think.

**Yoko Li:** Yeah, I mean, that said, it seems like we're seeing to some degree a specialization of user interfaces in sort of two directions. There's, let's say, a cursor or something like that, which really emphasizes the tight feedback loop between the user and the LLM and the thing I'm working on. So I want immediate gratification when I do something, and so response time matters. Then there's more the back-end, source cloud management system type plugins, where it's more about throwing something over the wall by maybe answering a couple of questions. And then you try to maximize the amount of time the agent can work independently. So it seems like, I think you're right that there's no clean system definition split between the two. But there seems to be a little bit of user interface specialization. Is that a fair statement?

**Matt Bornstein:** I almost feel like for all the use cases we've described, there's one element that all agents have, which is reasoning and decision. Would you call just a call to LLM to say, translate this text to JSON? That's probably not the agent. But then if you ask LM to say hey decide where you know this response goes and route it for me it feels more like an agent than before. So it almost felt like planning. I'm actually not sure does the agent need to plan or does it need to decide? Maybe both. I actually feel like it's a multi-step LLM chain with a decision tree. A dynamic decision tree. I think that's fair. I think we've all just been nerd sniped.

**Guido Appenzeller:** I think another thing is that agents are not just technology; they're also becoming products, which means they need to be marketed. And how someone positions their product has a major effect on how they price it. What's more, the ultimate value of any given agent, which is still to be determined for the vast majority of them, is to what degree they can actually replace or simply augment human workers. There is an interesting point, which is I think there is a marketing angle to agents. I've heard this narrative from a couple of startups that they're basically saying, like, hey, we can price the software that we're building much, much higher because this is an agent. So we can go to a company and say, you're replacing a human worker with this agent. The human worker makes, I don't know, $50,000 a year. And therefore, this agent, you can get for only $30,000 a year. This sounds really compelling from a first glance. And actually, I mean, there's some value to it in the very early days because essentially it's very easy to understand comparative pricing for somebody who has to make a buying decision. On the flip side, we all know that the cost of a product over time converges towards the marginal cost of production. And so today, if I used to use a translator, maybe to translate a page of text, today you use ChatGPT. I do not pay ChatGPT like I paid my translator. I paid a tiny fraction of a cent, which is via the API, which is the actual cost. So I sort of wonder how much of the agent debate is driven by marketing and pricing.

**Yoko Li:** I think this is a really interesting topic. What fields can you think of that are actually suffering complete replacement from AI or AI agents? And this is a setup, I'll warn you. I have another extreme point of view that I'll say afterward. But can you think of fields where this is actually happening? Not completely, but definitely partially. Because there's a lot of, for example, voice agents that replace receptionists. I don't know if we should name. Replace people who would, you know, get back to customers. So there's definitely a lot of workloads that have been offloaded from the folks who traditionally did the job. But I don't think they're, you know, 100% replaced. They can, you know, they can do something else. But we are seeing headcount growth in some areas are slowing. So it's not that existing jobs are being replaced. It's more like they're hiring net new humans slower. I think it's exactly right. I mean, I think in few cases, humans will get replaced by AI. In most cases, two humans will get replaced by one human that's more productive with AI. Yeah, or maybe they keep the two employees. Maybe they go to three employees because now they're more productive. Yeah, right. It's just a really interesting question. And the reason I think it's really relevant to agents is I think part of the ethos and part of the confusion around agents is this idea that we actually will develop human replacements. And that this thing we called an agent, which, by the way, is a name for a person. Before we had AI, we had people called agents. And we still have all kinds of people called agents. And it just doesn't seem like that's happening, right? Not in the replacement sense, right? You mentioned Yoko with agents. We've always had, you know, customer support automation. You know, we've had 1-800 numbers where you like press one for sales, plus, you know, if that's existed for a long time, this is a much better form of that, obviously. Translation is a great example too, Guido. These systems can perform translation extremely well, but you're probably not going to just stick something into ChatGPT and then publish it on your website, right? There is actually work that needs to take place. And I think the reason for this is there's just fundamental creative work in most things that humans do, right? I think from our kind of perch in Silicon Valley, we can forget that sometimes, that people all over the country and doing all sorts of jobs actually have hard jobs, and not just hard in the sense of someone's got to do it jobs, but hard in the sense of it does take thinking and human decision making, which I just don't know that AI kind of has what we would think of as decision making or intent, right? It's a system that still, somebody has to push the button, right? It may be running somewhere. It may do a great job of whatever. Someone still has to give it a prompt and hit go. And to me, that's a lot of the confusion around agents. We're all thinking at some point a human person with intent and creativity and thinking is going to be replaced. I'm just not sure that even is theoretically possible, right? It's almost just like a catch-22 to say an AI system is thinking for itself, right? Because somebody has to have sort of created it. You know, this is old sci-fi philosophy I'm getting into now. But like, I actually do think it's a big reason for the confusion that, you know, we sort of experience now.

**Matt Bornstein:** It's interesting because there's two types of agents we're already talking about. There's one type where the agent is replacing humans, work with humans, do things humans can do. There's the other type of agents that's more low-level system processes. They work with each other. They hand off tasks to each other. To some extent, agents are like technical details in the system in that way. But we mean both when we talk about agents. In that case, is there actually a difference between an agent and a function? I think so. I think agent will be multiple functions with LLMs in the middle. If I have a low-level agent and I'm giving this low-level agent a task and I get back a task result, it looks a little bit like a classic API call. But with the LLM in the middle to make decisions on what to do for that API call. So, I understood, but that's sort of how this function works internally to some degree? Yes. Right? Yeah. So from the outside, would I care? You wouldn't care. It's like most of the time when we see AISDRs, when we talk about AISDR agents, what we mean by that is when the agent can go to the CRM, pull something out, and then filter the list, draft an email, and send the email. So that feels very process level instead of human level. Yeah, so that's what I meant. If you don't know how this thing works internally, a classic function and an agent become indistinguishable. Totally. I absolutely agree.

**Guido Appenzeller:** But as a programmer, when you write a function, you define agent, that's this. Implementation. We'll get back to pricing shortly. But first, let's dive a little deeper into this discussion of how interacting with an agent is different than or similar to traditional software-based functions. So here's one interesting thing to think about on that topic. I totally agree with you, Guido, and I think you sort of agreed too. It's really a function if you kind of just look at it that way. Shareable, reproducible functions have never really been a thing. This has been one of these longtime goals that people in the market have tried to say, oh, I can just write a function and then anybody on earth can use it, right? We have packages, right, that you can download a whole package with various functionality, but literally just one function you can share. If you kind of squint a little bit, that kind of exists now with AI, right? Because you have these models that's trained by somebody. Somebody else may download it, fine-tune it, train a LoRa, package it up into some new and interesting way. And then it's actually immediately available for someone else to use on hosting services or hugging face or something like that. So while it does seem to be just an implementation detail, whether you're using an LLM or not, there is this interesting thing where the model itself takes up so much of that functionality in the function. And it's just a different kind of animal compared to normal code. It's actually more, it's kind of shared by default in a way because nobody's going in and training their own model every time they're writing code. You know, it's obviously heavy, right? It's harder to move around. There are all these different characteristics from normal functions that some of which are actually very desirable. Some are kind of, you know, bad, right? Characteristics you don't want, but many of them are kind of interesting and I think we'll actually see new infrastructure, new dev tools kind of built around this in the long run. I think it would make sense. I mean, when, if we go back in time, And the last time we sort of invented a major new component for building systems, it was probably networking, right? How we thought about calling a function before networking afterwards changed a lot, right? Totally, totally. The complexities of APIs and the infrastructure around it is completely different today. This is such a good point because now I think about it, I feel like humans are just functions too. If you have a thought experiment and then replace LLMs in the program to a human, the kind of answers we'll give to the program is not that different from what the LLM will give to the program. So if we actually all get hooked up to servers one day and can be called as a function from Lambda, then I will agree that agents have been created. That's what an agent is. Isn't Mechanical Turk exactly that? Or maybe even your email inbox? I would need that. There's an Amazon Go supermarket a while back in Soma. I think they were advertising that it computer vision models behind the scenes identifying what you took from the supermarket But then people found that they hire a lot of people behind the scenes to actually label the data in real time So the humans in that case are the functions that today may be... Secret agents. Right, replaced by all ends with... Well, but this was exactly my point, though, right? There actually is important creative work. Even in a grocery store checkout clerk, right? You could naively think, oh, this is an easy job. Actually, it's not an easy job at all, right? And so you can take this work and kind of shift it, right? And you can squeeze it down with automation and stuff, but it never really goes away. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

**Matt Bornstein:** All right. So given all of this, how should companies think about pricing their agents per seat, per token, per task? Hint, it might be too early to truly tell. Usually, if you introduce a brand new product category, right, you often initially put a pricing, the price is against the status quo, right? Whatever you replace or augment in some cases. But let's assume we have a direct replacement, right? So that's, I think, where this idea from, oh, this replaces a human, which it doesn't. But if it would, right, then you could charge, you know, X amount for it, right? Usually, over time, competition kicks in, right? And you're effectively priced by how much your competitors are charging, right? And you start sort of an erosion. Then it depends on many things, like how much of a mode do you have? Do you have customer lock-in, right, and so on? Long-term converge against the marginal cost of production, right? Which, I mean, look, if I look at most agents today, it's probably very low, right? Any agent you can purely model in software with a couple of LLMs calls, you can run at a very low cost. And the cost is decreasing over time. And I would sort of argue that's kind of already what's happening, that in practice, most AI applications, and in particular, if we want to call them AI agent applications, they have their sales pitch around, you should pay us X because we're saving you. It's like a classic ROI calculation. Established value. Yeah, exactly. Value-based pricing. But in practice, I think most buyers are actually pretty sophisticated about what's going on under the hood. And to your point, they know it's pretty simple stuff happening. And so it's like, hey, what does it cost you to run all these GPUs and we'll pay you some premium over that? And I think that's how a lot of vendors are pricing in practice these days. I mean, long time you'd expect pretty healthy margins, just like in SaaS, right? Which software traditionally has very good margins. It's so funny because we always advise companies to not price based on the margin, but price based on the value you add, whatever that could be. It could be compared to other vendors on the market. It could be compared to just, you know, what it is building in-house. And traditionally for infra, a rule of thumb, not always the case is that if the surface is used by a human, it's a per seat pricing. And if it's a service that's used by other machines, it's a usage-based pricing. And I actually don't know where to put agent here. Well, it could be used by either, right? It could be used by either. Look, I think your analysis is exactly right. And the reality is most AI companies don't know what value they're generating, yet this is so new and so nascent that it's like, hey, we're just going to charge something that we're not going to lose money on. And, you know, in the case of OpenAI, they have how many millions of users, they probably don't have a very strong sense of what they're all using it for. And once they do, right, and you see this more, they're trying to verticalize a bit more and have kind of specific products for specific use cases, code obviously being the big one. You know, then you'll be able to see the pricing kind of catch up is kind of my hypothesis.

**Yoko Li:** This reminds me of the OpenAI point you brought up. I was thinking about AI companions because that's the closest to perceived human pricing. Like you can't charge someone every sentence they talk to their companion, although some of the foundational models do. There are services that will charge you per response. I haven't used them, but they do exist. I see. Wow. Okay. So usually it's kind of weird to charge someone like by tokens of how much they talk to the companion, whether than like a flat monthly fee. It doesn't feel like a true friend. Right, exactly. It's very transactional. This is, look, this is all theory, right? People love sitting around and talking, oh, we're going to charge per person, per task, per world economy that we rescue. It's like it's all made up, right? I think Guido's thing was exactly right. Let's look at the actual technology underlying what we're calling agents right now, where they're being deployed and why. And honestly, the pricing, the marketing, the sales tactic, all of this kind of follows from what they're actually selling. If I'm selling something that looks like an agent, but I haven't truly figured out the value I'm providing to my users, How do I justify the jump to a higher price point when I do figure out that value? You just need to be selling a solution rather than a product, right? This is really well-worn expertise in enterprise go-to-market. Code, you can somewhat see the decoupling of price from the underlying technology now because it really works. There's a very clear ROI to people who use it. And so as a VP of engineering or a CTO, you can look at this and say, okay, I'm actually saving a lot of money and my guys are getting a lot more productive. I can value, I can do a normal ROI. Yeah, so you're kind of buying a solution, right? You're buying from a vendor something that solves a problem for you, which, again, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, people have been doing forever. Once we start to see more of that, it's going to be these things that become real products and kind of decouple pricing and look kind of like real businesses, I think.

**Matt Bornstein:** I think it's dictated by the high-level application. So I'll give you an example. So I'm a Pokemon Go player. So for those who have played Pokemon Go, once you collect enough Pokemons, you are out of storage in your pocket. So you need to pay extra to buy a new bag, virtual bag that you can put more Pokemon in. And as an infrastructure investor, I invest in storage businesses. And then when I look at how much I need to pay for like 30 extra Pokemon, it was thousands of times more expensive than what storage is. So it actually reminded... I'm surprised it sounded like thousands. It's 10 to the 15 or so. There's a whole price curve on Pokemon storage, it turns out. Because this is one JSON blob, basically. Right, it's one JSON blob. I know. And they charge you like $5. And then the normal Pokemon players, they wouldn't think about this, like how much do storage costs, right? Like a normal Pokemon player would be like, oh, this capability, I would be happily paying thousands more than I were to have a S3 bucket somewhere. So one of it is Monopoly. So it's an application layer Monopoly that you wouldn't have been able to store the Pokemon anywhere else. And two, it's a use case. It's for a different audience. They wouldn't be asking these questions. They would be thinking about what is the net new value? What's the net new cost I will be willing to, you know, for the bill for if I were to get this value? Is it a fun game? It's a fun game. Take a hundred more dollars. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And implicit is what you're saying is this idea that the product or the solution has to actually work for them, right? For a less technical person who's, you know, the person who's not going to try to provision their own storage bucket to self-hosted Pokemon. Can a remote S3 for Pokemon, yeah. And it's quite defensible and differentiated too because, you know, Pokemon Go is not open source. There's no other replacement of Pokemon Go. There's only one Pokemon Go. So there's only one place where you would be willing to pay so much money for Pokemon storage. Plus very strong brand. Plus you have a little bit of network effect because you can play together. Yeah, and then we'll see the AI agent version of this. I can't wait to see the AI companion version of this. Playing storage for AI companions wardrobe.

**Guido Appenzeller:** As the AI market continues to shake out and evolve, where will agent capabilities ultimately live? For example, can they live inside LLMs or must they call external tools? And who's ultimately in the best position to influence this? Super interesting question, right? What's the systems perspective of how an agent is built? So, and I personally think that architecturally, there really is no difference between your typical SaaS software to an agent in terms of how you build it, right? And let me explain why, right? So, an agent, we said you have sort of an overall loop with an LLM and prompts that feeds into itself plus external tool use. The LLM itself, you probably want to run a separate infrastructure just because it's highly specialized. You need these vast GPU farms. You can't easily run today's large LLMs in a single GPU. So, that's a very specialized infrastructure. That's externally. So the LLM call is external. The state management, well, today in SaaS applications, we do all the state management externally in databases or something like that. So you probably also want to externalize that, right? And then what remains is fairly lightweight logic, right? Where I'm basically, I'm taking context that I retrieve somehow from databases. I assemble that into a prompt. I run the prompt. And then I occasionally invoke tools. Maybe I do that with MCP or something like that with an external server. But the core loop is actually pretty lightweight, right? And I can run a gazillion agents on a single server, not a gazillion, but many agents on a single server. I don't need a lot of compute performance for that. Does that sound about right?

**Matt Bornstein:** Yeah yeah I totally agree The interesting architectural question for me has always been how do you handle the kind of non that may come Many of these successful AI applications that we all use and love really just spit model outputs back out to the user right Like a chatbot or image generator. It's like, hey, I called the LLM, here's what I got, you know, good luck. When you try to actually incorporate the output from an LLM into the control flow of your program, that is actually a very hard, very unsolved problem. To your point, there are relatively minor architectural differences today, But this may actually drive more significant changes in the future. I actually think the winners will be the specialists, not the foundational models. It's the people who will build on top of the foundational models or fine-tune the foundational models. So like a very artistic example of this is that I've been spending the last two weeks just prompting GPT-40, their image model. It's very good at cartooning. It's very good at manga. It can spell. So it has a storyline. But then I realized that there's only top two or three styles it's good at. So it's good at Ghibli, it's good at manga, and then there's variations of the style in that realm. So now where art comes in is that the market likes out-of-distribution art. Everyone doesn't want to see the same things over and over again because that's how they value art, something that's different. Ideally, maybe. Ideally, maybe. Did somebody recently define art as out-of-distribution samples? Yeah. Or it can be in distribution. That's pop art, right? It could also be out of distribution. That's like when impressionism came up many years ago, everyone was drawing impressionism. And at the time, the painters before, they were like, what's wrong with your eyes? Why are you drawing blurry images? So styles come and go. But because of that, I think it's a pushing distribution question. The foundational model will never cover 100% of everything. So it's really up to the humans and specialists of the next wave to come up with the new data, new workflows, new aesthetics to push that distribution.

**Yoko Li:** Of course, at the end of the day, agents are only as useful as the tools and data to which they have access. So what happens if major web platforms decide they want to keep agents from accessing their data? It seems like one of the hardest things about agents today are data modes. In some cases, just because they're technically difficult, I'm trying to access data, and agents trying to access data and it's just very hard to integrate with that system. In some cases, it's very deliberate, right? My iPhone, the photos are not accessible via any API because it's a walled garden. So it's sort of data silos you're talking about. Data silos, right? So is that something that's holding back agents or is making them more difficult? Or to make it even stronger, consumer companies traditionally often were opposed to offering automated access to their services because they want their user engagement. They want the time to advertise to the user. Will that limit how much we can deploy agents? And would that be changed once we have the browser native agents that can browse the web and browse on the phone? Great question. Yes. I think that I think Yoko is totally right. You know, it's like there's strong incentives for people who own data about, you know, physical entities, you know, people, businesses, etc. to keep to themselves, right? Especially because they may be scared what AI is going to do to them, by the way. So they're kind of clinging tight to what they have. And these problems are rarely solved by defining a new protocol and just saying, hey, if we make it easy for people to give away their core assets, they'll just do it. You know, obviously, you know, that's very unlikely to work. But someone eventually will solve this by saying, hey, if your data is publicly visible, we're going to get it. You know, it's like, by the way, it's not actually your data. It's about me. So why should you be holding on to it? Actually, I feel like the new advancement in models may just change the data mode. Kind of to the point of today, web browsing using an agent doesn't work super well. It's very slow. It's very clunky. You have to try it multiple times for it to do any task. But imagine if we have foundational model capability of giving an agent ability to go to any website, logging as a human. We'll table that one. I don't know how agent identity works yet. Or go SSH into a server, like execute certain commands, or spin up a virtual machine for mobile, or access a device farm to play Pokemon Go. Maybe those are the data traditionally only available to humans under that account, now may be available to agents. There's also the opposite that could happen, right? That basically all the consumer sites are starting with more and more complex anti-agent captures, trying to keep out the agents because they only want the humans that have attention to come to those sites. I mean, I recently did use one of these deep research tools, one of the major LLMs. And one of the