Cooperation in Human and Machine Agents: Promise Theory Considerations

I discuss some quantitative representations of Promise Theory for processes involving autonomous agents. Agent models are common in software systems, machine learning, and biology, for example, but may also apply to physics and other forms of engineering. I describe how Bayesian probability and information theoretic optimization, including Active Inference, may be incorporated with promise semantics -- as well as how Promise Theory supplements solutions, helping to avoid probability's pitfalls, which include non-local coordination, calibrating, and normalizing probabilistic computations. The role of boundary conditions in constraining allowed states and selecting decision thresholds is a form of promise, and agent alignment provides a scalable definition of intent. Autonomous agents may congeal into swarms with superagent characteristics by trying to minimize their information, despite uncertainty that works to maximize it. The use of Promise Theory involves some research challenges as well as stylistic preferences.

AI agents are rapidly evolving into autonomous systems capable of sustained interaction, tool use, and long-term collaboration. Yet their real-world adoption remains limited, suggesting that the key barrier lies not only in technical capability but also in a lack of design knowledge for successful human-agent interaction. This position paper argues that AI agents should not be solely evaluated or deployed based on autonomous task capability alone; because agents interact with, adapt to, influence, and sometimes fail humans, human-agent interaction must be treated as a core design and evaluation target for agentic AI. We present 14 design principles that articulate the ideal human-agent relationship across four interaction stages: initially, during interaction, over time, and when things go wrong. We use these principles to evaluate nine agent systems to illustrate that these design principles can provide actionable guidance for AI design teams to systematically design and evaluate agents that are usable, trustworthy, and effective in real-world interactive settings.

AI agents increasingly resemble software systems: they call tools, remember facts, follow policies, delegate work, and take actions with real consequences. % Yet the ``program'' of an agent is scattered across prompts, tools, memories, workflows, and execution traces, making its behavior difficult to inspect through ordinary testing and debugging alone. % This essay argues that a programming-systems perspective offers a natural lens for making agents reliable. % We recast agents as programmable artifacts whose behavior can be specified over traces and state, checked before deployment, monitored during execution, and improved from observed failures. % The goal is not to make probabilistic agents behave like deterministic programs, but to give them enough structure that their behavior can be reasoned about, controlled, and repaired.