agent has almost as many definitions as set.
In contrast, "agent" discusses a huge range of scientific concepts, and I have yet to see a single definition of agent that holds up to scientific scrutiny. This book has managed to define "agent" in a way that is entirely equivalent to "physical object" - putting worms and thermostats in the same category broadens the category to utter uselessness. By this definition, Jupiter is an agent.
The only utility of definitions like this is for dishonest people to cheat at arguments: claiming simple tools are agents, then arguing they are like dogs and humans, which are also agents. It's a total waste of time, coming from AI's shameless disrespect for scientific standards.
Is it? What task was it designed to carry out autonomously? Where are the inputs and the logic hiding?
> for dishonest people to cheat at arguments
Only if the goal is to deceive. If the communication is well intentioned then there is nothing inherently wrong with it despite it not being to your liking.
The definition is just incoherent! "Sometimes an agent is deterministic and in this case the term only includes manmade tools, other times an agent is an apparently nondeterministic automaton and in this case we can include natural life." It only allows "agent" to be labelled ad hoc, and in particular blurs the distinction between "nondeterministic tool" and "lifeform" in ways that are scientifically unjustifiable. The only people this pointless word game benefits are liars like Sam Altman and Mustafa Suleyman; if people are well-intentioned then these definitions bring nothing but confusion.
Similar logic can be used to argue that machines are no different from rocks.
At the end of the day it's an argument of semantics so it's always going to come down to some fairly arbitrary criteria. You could survey people to determine common usage. You could establish a standards body to define it. Probably some other options as well.
Recall that Pluto used to be considered a planet.
I think their apparent definition seems fairly reasonable, although it's far from the only one. It appears to amount to living organisms plus any machinations constructed by said organisms that respond to the environment in some clear manner. Thus worms, dogs, humans, and thermostats. Probably not bicycles or hammers. Drones probably only qualify when operating in an autonomous mode. I'm not seeing the issue.