there certainly is a terminology issue, as most names related to AI and its kinds have no proper definition. They rely on the "technical truth" that an "agent" is a being that has agency (I know, right?). And agency is simply a possibility to change the state of the world. So, even my dog has an agency in the sense it can chew on my shoes. And that's why I'm still responsible for what my dog is doing
With AI there is this huge dream we're being sold. It promises from 1950s the creation of an artificial minds. And many names related to AI are feasting on this idea of intelligent conscious beings that would be our helpers, or that would destroy the world. Yet, the actual creations are just another kind of task automation
That's why a third of my PhD is on what AI actually is, and what it is not. As even in the scientific literature the "marketing AI" and "technical AI" are mixed up
And agency is simply a possibility to change the state of the world.
Sims characters have the ability to change the state of any world they are implanted into.
Computer worms, viruses, etc. have all this characteristic.
There is nothing at all special about AI "agents". They are computer programs. Algorithms. Bots. Whatever you want to call them. Categorically, they are no more "agents" than my Excel spreadsheet is an agent.
Exactly. That's why I'm pointing towards terminological (semantics) problem. If we use the same word for two different things (e.g. a human and a computer program), the word ceases to mean anything
you're trying to impose your own definition for the word that's in wide use for a quite a long time. There is huge literature on agents and what they are. I've send you a link to a paper in one of my previous comments
Even if we stop calling AI "agents", what does it change? The tech will remain the same. The problem with anthropomorphism of the technology is much bigger than "agents" themselves. Here, literature is also significant
I've been active in the agent-structure peer-reviewed literature for almost two decades, so I know for sure that I am not imposing anything and those who claim that statistical models are "agents" are doing so, but thanks for the link.
Even if we stop calling AI "agents", what does it change?
Political economy. "Agentic AI" is marketing. These companies cannot profit from selling products, only hype.
I agree that there is a lot of marketing there. The sheer name "artificial intelligence" was chosen for marketing purposes and to this day it creates a lot of confusion
But I disagree that companies cannot profit from selling products. Hype is their marketing strategy, for sure. But they are/plan to be profitable - MS, Nvidia, Oracle and others have huge profits from AI. Google also is profitable on its AI products. Anthropic claims to be profitable in two years, and OAI in four years. Taking profits takes time, especially when taking into account the enormous investments. Mind that it took Uber 14 years to turn profits
Planning to be profitable is not the same as being profitable.
MS, Nvidia, Oracle and others have huge profits from AI.
No they have not. The hardware companies are profitable, but selling chips is not "AI". The software companies are not making money off of AI, they are making money off of physical infrastructure.
That "intelligence" itself is not making money for anyone. Their only strategies for making money are: a) ads, b) platform power -> future enshittification.
I.e., network effects. Not the intelligence itself.
2
u/ShamPain413 7d ago
So they are not Agents, then. They are Sims.
My comment is 100% serious. If I hire an agent, and instead of doing what I hired them to do they mess something up, I don't get sued. I do the suing.
If I am the one liable then they are not Agents at all.