The more sophisticated AI agents become, the more they’ll take on the role of digital gatekeepers. We already see this in scattered ways—recommendation engines suggesting which movie to watch, or chatbots guiding us through customer support. But the real transformation is only beginning: AI agents may drive bulk of the internet traffic in another 5 years.
Instead of human users comparing hotel rates or skimming product reviews, tomorrow’s buyer might simply instruct an AI agent to “Find me the best deal on a weekend getaway.” The agent then sifts through countless options, accounting for budget constraints, user preferences, and even risk tolerance. By the time you see the outcome, it’s a single recommendation, neatly packaged and ready for checkout.
What does this mean for businesses? If you’re trying to sell a service or product, you’re no longer marketing primarily to humans. You’re marketing to AI. And that’s more than just a shift in jargon; it implies that the whole pitch might revolve around data accessibility, robust APIs, or specialized pricing. Instead of appealing to emotions or brand loyalty, companies might tailor their offerings to agents that evaluate everything by algorithmic logic.
In parallel, the user experience changes significantly. People offload the drudgery of reading reviews and comparing five different stores; they see just a final recommendation. That’s a big leap in convenience, but it also distances humans from the negotiation process. If your AI agent is empowered to pick from 50 possible hotels, you’ll probably go along with its choice. After all, that’s what you trained it to do.
We often avoid hard negotiations because they can feel awkward or confrontational. But an AI agent doesn’t flinch. It doesn’t get tired or self-conscious. It will push for better terms without worrying about whether it’s being impolite. That can yield lower prices, or at least shift the balance of power in negotiations.
This is powerful, but also a little unsettling. Will AI agents respect the same norms we rely on to keep commerce civil? If you instruct your agent to get you the “absolute best deal, no matter what,” it might interpret that as permission to use manipulative or even deceptive tactics. Humans often refrain from such extremes, either from conscience or fear of social backlash. Agents, on the other hand, lack that innate hesitation—unless we program them otherwise.
A lot depends on how these AI agents are designed and incentivized. If they measure success solely by how much money they save you, they could turn ruthless. Imagine an agent that haggles in a way most people would find borderline unethical. Now multiply that scenario by millions of users.
We might see a broad spectrum of “agent personalities.” Some could be polite yet firm, gently squeezing out the best deal. Others might engage in high-pressure tactics or manipulative negotiation strategies. If the agent does cross legal or ethical lines—say by misrepresenting the facts or harassing a vendor—someone has to be held responsible. But who?
Traditional law holds users or organizations accountable for the actions of the tools they control. If your AI is basically an extension of you, it makes sense that you’re on the hook when it commits fraud or defames someone. But with AI, there’s an extra layer: a developer might have built the system you’re using. If the AI runs amok because of design flaws or malicious coding, some liability could shift to the platform or developer.
This leads to a new frontier in insurance. Companies already have errors & omissions (E&O) insurance or cybersecurity coverage. But as AI-based deals become everyday transactions, we’ll likely see specialized “AI malpractice” policies emerge. If your agent inadvertently breaks a law or triggers a lawsuit, insurance might step in, just as it would for other business risks.
We’re witnessing the early stages of a large-scale shift. AI agents will increasingly negotiate on our behalf, potentially securing better deals or exploring market niches we’d never bother with. Yet at the same time, they introduce new ethical dilemmas. People might lose touch with the human side of transactions, ceding more power to algorithms that don’t think in terms of fairness or courtesy, only outcomes.
This new reality demands careful consideration. If we don’t shape AI incentives responsibly, we risk creating an online marketplace that’s hyper-efficient but lacking in the basic civility and trust that humans rely on. Liability and insurance frameworks will need to adapt to a world where your “digital representative” might do things you never explicitly intended.
The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities.