Analogy: if a someone's involved when a person dies, it's manslaughter or murder based on intent. They're different, but they're both crimes.
An agent is an entity acting on someone’s behalf.
You cannot try an AI agent in a court of law, despite the anthropomorphising work the word "agent" is doing.
We say "Google's web crawlers scape web pages." We don't insist you say "Google uses web crawlers to scrape web pages."
We describe software as having agency all the time. It's typical usage and it's efficient and it's well understood.
And we don't get angry when they're used interchangeably.
The attack here is neither of those things.
Birch, The Edge of Sentience (2024), ch. 16 - "simply no way to assess sentience in an LLM"
Schwitzgebel, AI and Consciousness, (2025) — "we won't know before we've already manufactured thousands or millions of disputably conscious AI".
Butlin, Long et al., Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness, (2023) — "no obvious technical barriers to building AI systems which satisfy these indicators".
Let me know if you need more.
Also, why is self awareness needed in a chain of agentic madness that escapes human control?
So yes, I would like to be protected from all parties. I don't think that's nuts.
I agree with you on the liability issue, but I don't think there much question about this issue outside the anti-AI conspiracy campaigns.
And I disagree with your typical usage claim. I myself tend to use the phrase that has the fewest words in all cases. It's like the rule against using passive tense when writing.