[minasmorath]

That definition feels like it's playing on the verb, the idea of having "agency" in the world, and not on the noun, of being an "agent" for another party. The former is a philosophical category, while the latter has legal meaning and implication, and it feels somewhat disingenuous to continue to mix them up in this way.

[AnimalMuppet]

Interesting. The best agents don't have agency, or at least don't use it.

You can think of this in video game terms: Players have agency. NPCs are "agencs", but don't have agency. But they're still not just objects in the game - they can move themselves and react to their environment.

[minasmorath]

That's actually a great example of what I'm saying, because I don't think the NPCs are agents at all in the traditional sense of "One that acts or has the power or authority to act on behalf of another." Where would the NPC derive its power and authority from? There is a human somewhere in the chain giving it 100% of its parameters, and that human is ultimately 100% responsible for the configuration of the NPC, which is why we don't blame the NPC in the game for behaving in a buggy way, we blame the devs. To say the NPC has agency puts some level of metaphysical responsibility about decision making and culpability on the thing that it doesn't have.

An AI "agent" is the same way, it is not culpable for its actions, the humans who set it up are, but we're leading people to believe that if the AI goes off script then the AI is somehow responsible for its own actions, which is simply not true. These are not autonomous beings, they're technology products.

[pvg]

In what way is it 'disingenuous'? You think Norvig is trying to deceive us about something? I'm not saying you have to agree with or like this definition but even if you think it's straight up wrong, 'disingenuous' feels utterly out of nowhere.

[minasmorath]

It's disingenuous in that it takes a word with a common understanding ("agent") and then conveniently redefines or re-etomologizes the word in an uncommon way that leads people to implicitly believe something about the product that isn't true.

Another great example of this trick is "essential" oils. We all know what the word "essential" means, but the companies selling the stuff use the word in the most uncommon way, to indicate the "essence" of something is in the oil, and then let the human brain fill in the gap and thus believe something that isn't true. It's techinically legal, but we have to agree that's not moral or ethical, right?

Maybe I'm wildly off base here, I have admittedly been wrong about a lot in my life up to this point. I just think the backlash that crops up when people realize what's going on (for example, the airline realizing that their chat bot does not in fact operate under the same rules as a human "agent," and that it's still a technology product) should lead companies to change their messaging and marketing, and the fact that they're just doubling down on the same misleading messaging over and over makes the whole charade feel disingenuous to me.