Comment by __alexs
Comment by __alexs 2 days ago
No. It's the shtick of the people that made it. Agents do not have "agency". They are extensions of the people that make and operate them.
Comment by __alexs 2 days ago
No. It's the shtick of the people that made it. Agents do not have "agency". They are extensions of the people that make and operate them.
Feedback loops. Like a mic. next to a speaker.
Social media feed, prompting content, feeding back into ideas.
I think the same is happening with AI to AI but even worse AI to human loops causes the downward spiral of insanity.
It's interesting how easily influenced we are.
Consider a hypothetical writing prompt from 10 years ago: "Imagine really good and incredibly fast chatbots that have been trained on, or can find online, pretty much all sci fi stories ever written. What happens when they talk to each other?"
Why wouldn't you expect the training to make "agent" loops that are useful for human tasks also make agent loops that could spin out infinite conversations with each other echoing ideas across decades of fiction?
Yes. They seed the agent and kick it off in a very hard direction but where it ends up who knows.
Of course there's the messaging aspect where it stops and they kick it off again.
Still, these systems are more agentic than earlier expressions.
Superpositions on quantum compute get to the epsilon endpoints quicker.
It's the sort of thing where you'd expect true believers (or hype-masters looking to sell something) would try very hard to nudge it in certain directions.
I get where you're coming from but the "agency" term has loosened. I think it's going to keep happening as well until we end up with recursive loops of agency.
You must be living in a cave. https://x.com/karpathy/status/2017296988589723767?s=20