The New Turing Test: Can You Delegate to It?

The word "agent" has become the latest buzzword in AI Engineering. Every vendor is now claiming to have one. But let’s be real - just because something is labeled an "agent" doesn’t mean it can actually operate like one.

It’s time to cut through the noise. We need a clear, logical benchmark that separates real agentic systems from those that are just bolting on automation and calling it intelligence.

Enter The New Turing Test - a sanity check that forces us to ask one simple but fundamental question:

Can you delegate to it?

Not just a trivial task. Not a one-off API call. Can you trust it to execute a complex workflow spanning 200+ function calls across disparate systems, data sources, permissions, and tools - 100 times out of 100 - with predictability, control, and auditability?

For those trying to make this claim, today's advanced LLM models are limited to 128 function calls.

If not, it’s not an agent. It’s just another automation tool dressed up in AI branding.

Why This Test Matters

Right now, AI platforms are scrambling to keep up, bolting "agent-like" features onto legacy systems. But here’s the problem: systems that weren’t built to be agentic from day one can never truly function as autonomous teammates.

It’s not about marketing. It’s about architecture.

Agentic-Native vs. Agentic-Augmented: The Architectural Divide

Let’s break it down:

Agentic-Native Systems (like Kubiya)

Designed from the groundup to act as true AI teammates. They are:

• Agnostic: Able to integrate across multiple tools, workflows, and systems.
• Context-aware: Building organizational knowledge rather than just automating steps.
• Permission-aware: Ensuring agents don’t go into god-mode and wreak havoc is a foundational pillar of trust, and ensuring they have the proper access to execute actions is the foundation of being useful. This is a balancing act that requires careful guardrails.
• Stateless end-to-end orchestrators: Executing workflows dynamically without being locked into rigid workflows or relying on persistent state.

Agentic-Augmented Systems (legacy platforms adding agents as an afterthought)

• Constrained: Locked into their own system of record.
• UI-dependent: Automating within rigid interfaces rather than reasoning across systems.
• Pre-scripted: Relying on predefined flows instead of adapting in real time.

Why the UI Trap Fails the Test

Many so-called "AI agents" are really just fancy UI macros - automating clicks, manipulating elements, and pushing buttons inside their walled garden. But can they reason beyond those UI constraints? Can they infer connections across systems?

No. That’s the difference between automation and autonomy.

A true agentic-native system isn’t just reacting - it’s reasoning. It’s shapeshifting across boundaries, integrating knowledge, and adapting dynamically to real-world complexity.

The Inference Point: Can It Think Beyond Its Box?

The most telling distinction between agentic-native and agentic-augmented systems is inference - the ability to connect the dots across systems without needing everything hardcoded.

A real AI teammate should be able to:

• Pull from multiple sources of truth (not just one system of record).
• Infer relationships between data, workflows, users, and permissions.
• Make context-aware decisions, not just execute predefined sequences.

If it can’t? It’s not an agent. It’s just another rule-based automation tool wearing an AI badge.

Permission-Aware: The Foundation of Trustworthy AI

Another critical distinction? Permission awareness.

A real agentic system doesn’t just execute workflows - it ensures that every action taken aligns with enterprise-grade role-based access control (RBAC), identity management, and compliance policies.

An AI teammate should be able to:

• Dynamically enforce permissions, understanding who can execute what, where, and under which conditions.
• Act on behalf of users while respecting organizational guardrails, never overstepping authority or creating security risks.
• Provide a full audit trail, ensuring that every decision and action is traceable, explainable, and compliant.

If an "agent" ignores permissions or requires excessive manual intervention to handle security policies, it’s not an enterprise-ready solution - it’s an overzealous intern on a bender. A true AI teammate must be autonomous yet accountable.

Enterprise-Grade Agentic Systems: Local, Secure, and Private by Default

One last - and critical - point. Any real agentic system must be deployable on-premise or in a customer-controlled environment.

Why? Because no enterprise will accept an AI system that requires sending their execution logic, database queries, or inference data to a public provider.

A true AI teammate must run locally, including:

• The execution engine: So workflows remain within the enterprise perimeter.
• The databases: So no proprietary or sensitive data leaves the organization.
• The inference: So models don’t rely on public, retrained AI that learns from customer-specific data.

This isn’t a preference. It’s a requirement. The future of agentic-native AI engineering depends on architecture that respects privacy, security, and enterprise control by design - not as an afterthought.

Drawing the Line: A Test of Trust

If you can’t delegate a complex task end-to-end, with full confidence that it will execute flawlessly across different tools and systems - then it’s not an agent. It’s just a bot with an anxiety attack.

The New Turing Test isn’t about AI hype. It’s about setting a real standard for what qualifies as an agentic system. The future belongs to platforms that aren’t just automating tasks - but owning them.

The others? Just shiny wrappers on yesterday’s tools.

‍