AI agents transacting on behalf of humans

Delegating economic decisions to AI agents engages a specific neurobiological tension: the relief-of-cognitive-load response versus the loss-of-control anxiety response. The human nervous system evolved in an environment where surrendering control over resource acquisition to another party was a highly consequential act with significant survival implications. When that party is an AI agent — not a trusted human, not an institution with a face and a reputation — the anxiety response is partially suppressed by the cognitive framing of technology as tool rather than agent. This suppression creates a risk: people apply the trust heuristics of tool-use (tools do what you tell them, are reliably bounded in their action space, fail safely) to entities that operate more like agents (capable of novel action, capable of exceeding their mandate, capable of generating outcomes that were not intended by their design). The neurobiological mismatch between tool-trust and agent-risk is one of the most important human factors in AI agent governance — it predicts systematic underestimation of agency risk in user populations that have been trained to trust technology tools.

The psychology of AI agent delegation involves several distinct mechanisms. Automation bias: once a user has delegated a task to an AI agent and observed it work correctly several times, they develop an overconfident expectation that it will continue to work correctly in novel situations — a bias documented extensively in aviation and medical decision-support contexts. Responsibility diffusion: when an AI agent makes a decision, humans tend to experience reduced felt responsibility for the outcome, even when they authorized the agent and the outcome was foreseeable. This diffusion creates conditions for moral hazard — principals who are less attentive to agent behavior because they feel less accountable for its consequences. The anthropomorphism of conversational AI agents creates false attribution of intent, reliability, and understanding that misaligns user expectations with actual system capabilities. And the goal-setting problem is psychologically as well as technically difficult: people often cannot specify their preferences with sufficient precision to define agent objectives that will satisfy them across all situations, particularly edge cases the user did not anticipate when setting the goal.

The development of AI agents transacting on behalf of humans follows a trajectory with identifiable phases. Narrow automation (1970s–2010s): rule-based systems executing predefined transaction types within rigid parameters — wire transfers, stock order execution, supply chain reorder triggers. Algorithmic trading and optimization (2000s–present): statistical and machine learning models making consequential financial decisions at speeds beyond human supervision, generating both efficiency gains and new categories of market instability. Large-language-model agents (2022–present): general-purpose reasoning systems integrated with financial and commercial APIs, capable of natural language goal specification, novel situation handling, and multi-step planning across extended time horizons. The next phase — autonomous multi-agent economic systems where AI agents negotiate contracts, form commercial relationships, and allocate resources across complex supply chains without human involvement in individual transactions — is visibly approaching but has not yet been deployed at scale. Each phase has required new governance frameworks, and the current phase is conspicuously underserved by existing frameworks.

The cultural responses to AI agents transacting on behalf of humans vary by generation, geography, and economic context. In the United States, the dominant early-adopter culture has been entrepreneurial — AI agents as productivity multipliers that allow individuals to operate at the scale of larger organizations, compressing the competitive advantage that large enterprises derive from staffing. In China, AI agent deployment has been more systematically integrated into enterprise procurement and supply chain management, reflecting different regulatory environments and different tolerance for automation of high-stakes decisions. Among younger users in high-cost-of-living urban environments, AI agents that negotiate bills, optimize subscriptions, and automate financial optimization are cultural markers of financial literacy and time-efficiency. Among older populations, the delegation of financial decisions to AI agents carries the same cultural anxiety as earlier waves of banking automation — a sense of lost legibility and lost control over one's own economic life. These cultural expressions will shape regulatory politics as AI agents move from edge-case technology to mainstream infrastructure.

The practical governance of AI agents transacting on behalf of humans requires design choices at several levels. Authorization architecture: how are the bounds of an agent's authority specified, stored, enforced, and modified? Current implementations range from natural language instructions (imprecise, ambiguous, not auditable) to formal policy specifications (precise, auditable, but difficult to specify comprehensively). Audit trail requirements: every consequential action taken by an AI agent should be logged with sufficient detail to reconstruct the decision — what information the agent had access to, what options it considered, what it chose, and on what basis. This is technically achievable and should be standard. Liability assignment: the human principal, not the AI developer, should bear primary responsibility for transactions that fall within the scope of authority granted to the agent, with developer liability reserved for cases where the agent exceeded its specification or failed in ways that were not disclosed. Interoperability standards: agents that interact with other agents need shared protocols for authority verification, the equivalent of checking credentials before entering a contract.

AI agents transacting on behalf of humans transform the relational structure of economic exchange in ways that are only beginning to be understood. The vendor-customer relationship, which has historically involved some level of human contact and mutual accountability, becomes a contract between one human's agent and another human's agent — or between a human's agent and an institutional AI system — where the relational accountability is distributed in novel ways. Trust, which in economic relationships is partly built through repeated direct interaction and partly through reputation systems, must be reconstructed for an agent economy where the party you are "dealing with" may be an AI whose principal you cannot identify. The potential for agent-to-agent negotiation to produce outcomes that neither principal would have chosen, but that both agents optimized for according to their respective specifications, creates a new category of relational outcome: the collectively emergent but individually unintended transaction. Managing these relational dimensions requires both technical infrastructure (identity and authority verification) and social infrastructure (norms about disclosure when AI agents are transacting).

The philosophical core of the AI agent transaction problem is the question of agency itself: what does it mean for an entity to act on behalf of another, and what moral and legal weight does that action carry? Classical agency theory, derived from both Roman law and Enlightenment contract philosophy, assumes that agents are persons — entities capable of intentions, capable of understanding the scope of their authority, and capable of bearing responsibility when they exceed it. AI agents are not persons in this sense: they are not capable of intentions in the morally relevant sense, they cannot understand authority except as a statistical pattern in their training data, and they cannot bear responsibility. The philosophical challenge is to reconstruct the accountability and responsibility infrastructure of economic agency for entities that have agency in the functional sense — they produce purposive behavior in the world — but lack it in the moral sense. This is not a solved philosophical problem, and the urgency of AI agent deployment means that law will need to develop practical solutions before philosophy delivers principled ones.

The history of economic agency innovation provides relevant antecedents for the AI agent era. The development of the limited liability corporation in the nineteenth century created a new kind of economic agent — not a person, but capable of entering contracts, holding property, and bearing liability — that required entirely new legal infrastructure and generated significant social controversy before that infrastructure was developed. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), which automated procurement transactions between large enterprises beginning in the 1970s, was an early machine-to-machine transaction system that required new legal frameworks for contract formation without human signature. Algorithmic trading, which began seriously in the 1980s and accelerated through the 2000s, demonstrated that autonomous systems making consequential financial decisions at scale create both efficiency gains and new systemic risks, and that regulatory frameworks designed for human trading needed significant reconstruction for algorithmic participants. Each antecedent teaches that the legal and governance frameworks of the previous economic era do not automatically transfer to a new category of economic agent; they require deliberate reconstruction.

The deployment of AI agents transacting on behalf of humans is shaped by several contextual factors. The maturation of LLM capabilities from 2022 onward created, for the first time, AI systems capable of natural language goal interpretation and novel-situation reasoning adequate for the breadth of real-world transactional contexts. The proliferation of open APIs across financial and commercial platforms created the tool infrastructure that agents require to act. The growth of model context windows and the development of tool use frameworks reduced the technical barriers to building agents that can reason over multi-step transactional sequences. And the economic pressure to reduce costs in enterprise procurement, customer service, and financial management has created strong demand-side pull for agent deployment ahead of governance frameworks. The contextual convergence of technical capability, infrastructure availability, and economic demand is creating deployment pressure that is outpacing the development of the legal and governance frameworks that agent transactions require.

AI agents transacting at scale will integrate with existing economic systems in ways that create both efficiency and fragility. On the efficiency side: real-time price discovery across markets that currently have significant search frictions; automated compliance with regulatory requirements that currently require manual review; optimal allocation of procurement spend across supplier networks that currently relies on human negotiators with cognitive bandwidth constraints. On the fragility side: agent-to-agent transactions in markets with significant machine participation can produce emergent dynamics — synchronized selling, correlated optimization, simultaneous rebalancing — that amplify volatility. The systemic integration of AI agents with payment infrastructure introduces the possibility of AI-driven payment fraud at a scale and sophistication that outpaces human fraud-detection systems. And the concentration of AI agent development in a small number of foundation model providers creates systemic dependency on those providers — if the underlying model is updated, manipulated, or fails, the transactions of millions of agents built on that model are simultaneously affected.

The integrative picture of AI agents transacting on behalf of humans is one of genuine transformative potential combined with governance infrastructure that is structurally lagging. The transformation is real: autonomous agents will extend the effective economic capacity of individuals and organizations, reduce friction in routine transactions, and generate market efficiencies that benefit broad populations. The governance lag is also real: the legal frameworks for authority, liability, and accountability in agent transactions have not been designed for AI agents; the transparency infrastructure that would allow auditing of agent decisions is not standardized; and the systemic risk frameworks that apply to algorithmic trading have not been extended to general-purpose agents. Law 5's demand for transparent archive is directly applicable: the foundational requirement for AI agent governance is a comprehensive transaction log that captures what agents were authorized to do, what they did, and what the outcomes were — not as a compliance formality but as the primary input to the iterative revision process through which governance frameworks are built.

The future of AI agents transacting on behalf of humans will be shaped by three trajectories. The governance trajectory: jurisdictions that develop clear, practical frameworks for AI agent authority, liability, and transparency will attract agent-based commerce and set international standards; those that do not will face both regulatory arbitrage and the accumulation of unaddressed harms. The capability trajectory: agents will move from executing within human-specified parameters to negotiating those parameters in real time, from operating in single domains to coordinating across domains, and from transacting in structured markets to navigating informal and relational economic contexts — each step expanding the action space and the governance challenge simultaneously. The systemic trajectory: the interaction of large numbers of AI agents in shared markets will generate emergent economic behaviors that are only legible in aggregate data — the transaction archive that Law 5 demands is not merely a record of individual agents but the dataset through which collective agent dynamics become visible, analyzable, and subject to governance. The future implication is that the archive is not the outcome of AI agent governance; it is the precondition for it.

1. Russell, Stuart. Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. New York: Viking, 2019. 2. Krakovna, Victoria, Jonathan Uesato, Vladimir Mikulik, Matthew Martic, Tom Stepleton, Peter Weidinger, and Laura Weidinger. "Avoiding Side Effects in Complex Environments." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 21406–21418. 3. Doshi-Velez, Finale, and Been Kim. "Towards a Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 (2017). 4. Kirilenko, Andrei, Albert S. Kyle, Mehrdad Samadi, and Tugkan Tuzun. "The Flash Crash: High Frequency Trading in an Electronic Market." Journal of Finance 72, no. 3 (2017): 967–998. 5. Müller, Vincent C., and Nick Bostrom. "Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Expert Opinion." In Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence, edited by Vincent C. Müller, 553–570. Cham: Springer, 2016. 6. Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015. 7. Bratman, Michael E. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. 8. Surden, Harry. "Computable Contracts." UC Davis Law Review 46, no. 2 (2012): 629–700. 9. Calo, Ryan. "Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw." California Law Review 103, no. 3 (2015): 513–563. 10. Guerrieri, Veronica, and Guido Lorenzoni. "Credit Crises, Precautionary Savings, and the Liquidity Trap." Quarterly Journal of Economics 132, no. 3 (2017): 1427–1467. 11. Floridi, Luciano, Josh Cowls, Monica Beltrametti, Raja Chatila, Patrice Chazerand, Virginia Dignum, Christoph Luetge, et al. "An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations." Minds and Machines 28, no. 4 (2018): 689–707. 12. Werbach, Kevin. The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.