I’ll need some clarification: Does that mean that someone who habitually starts new processes or projects but seldom is able to finish them or see them through to completion has lots of (Rationalist sense) Agency?
But also, does that mean in a hypothetical organization where one person has the means to veto any decision others man, but the veto-holder seldom exercises it despite very easily being able to, the veto-holder would not be Agentic?
No. Initiative is, well, it’s an ordinary English word with a generally understood meaning. Pulled from the web:
“The ability to assess and initiate things independently”, “the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do”, “the ability to use your judgment to make decisions and do things without needing to be told what to do”, synonyms “ambition, action, enterprise, drive, spirit, aggressiveness, vigor, hustle, energy, go, gumption, grit, spunk, assertiveness” etc. I think that paints a pretty clear picture.
This is what I have always understood by the word “agency” in the LW-sphere, at least when applied to people. The LW coinages “agenty” and “agentic” mean having agency in that sense.
So habitually starting things and letting them wither doesn’t cut it, and neither does nominally having some role but never executing it. It’s an inner quality that by its nature must manifest in outward actions.
The word “Agency” also has specific other, more technical uses. Here it is in philosophy, where it means something distantly similar but far broader. It’s a “porridge word” (Edward de Bono’s coinage), a hazy concept with little content that, like porridge, takes up the shape of whatever container it is put in. “Fake explanations” often consist of calling the thing to be explained by a porridge word.
Then there is “Agency” in the context of AIs having it, or being Agents. This is something that I don’t think the users of the word understand themselves. They’re trying to project human agency in the sense described above onto these giant weight matrices without having a non-mentalistic characterisation of the phenomenon they’re trying to find there. Not knowing what you’re looking for makes it difficult to find. From time to time I’ve suggested that control systems, hierarchically organised in a specific way, are the concept they need, but haven’t got much traction.
Thank you for taking the time to try and give me a broad overview of the different nuances of the word, unfortunately here the student has failed the teacher. I’m still very confused.
I previously have understood the porridge sense of agency (tangent—I like that phrase ‘porridge word’, reminds me of Minksy’s ‘suitecase word’) to be “an entity that has influence or can affect change”. Here on LW I have been brought to believe it just means acting, verging on thoughtlessly, which I understood to be since acting is the only way to catalyze change (i.e. change towards one’s goals).
So habitually starting things and letting them wither doesn’t cut it, and neither does nominally having some role but never executing it. It’s an inner quality that by its nature must manifest in outward actions.
I failed to explain my confusion: It’s not so much “letting them wither” let me put it another way: if you are in a bunker, there’s a armed conflict overhead, and therefore the smartest thing to do is “nothing” by staying put in the bunker, are you being agentic/acting agentically? The only things they can initiate at that point are unnecessary risk.
Likewise, I don’t mean nominally having some role. Not nominally but actually having the means, the power, the authority, the social status, the lack of negative repercussions to exercise the means, the knowledge but choosing not to exercise it because they evaluate it as not being worthwhile. They could initiate changes, but they rarely see the need, not from fear or reluctance, but from weighing up the pros and cons. Are they being agentic?
Agency here is not “change for the sake of change” but presumedly “acting in a way that materializes the agent’s goals” and that requires initiative, analogous to Aristotle’s Kinoun (Efficient) Cause—the carpenter who takes the initiative of making wood into a table. However the connotation of spunk, hustle, ambition etc. etc. and generally acting with energy and enthusiasm towards goals—knowing that these are not golden tickets to success (Necessary factors? Probably. Sufficient? Probably not.) -- confuses me what this quality is describing.
You’re looking at edge cases in order to understand the concept. I think looking at the centre works better than mapping out the periphery, which was my reason for giving those definitions and synonyms of “initiative”. If someone is in a situation where circumstances forestall any effective action, then to ask whether they are being “agentic” in doing nothing is like asking whether an unheard falling tree makes a sound.
I’m afraid I just have to give up on understanding what Agency means then. Thank you for trying though.
If someone is in a situation where circumstances forestall any effective action, then to ask whether they are being “agentic” in doing nothing is like asking whether an unheard falling tree makes a sound.
Unlike initiative because you can take initiative and it not deliver intended results. But it’s still initiative. While is being Agentic a potential or an actuality? I don’t know.
“Agency” is rationalist jargon for “initiative”, the ability to initiate things.
I’ll need some clarification:
Does that mean that someone who habitually starts new processes or projects but seldom is able to finish them or see them through to completion has lots of (Rationalist sense) Agency?
But also, does that mean in a hypothetical organization where one person has the means to veto any decision others man, but the veto-holder seldom exercises it despite very easily being able to, the veto-holder would not be Agentic?
No. Initiative is, well, it’s an ordinary English word with a generally understood meaning. Pulled from the web:
“The ability to assess and initiate things independently”, “the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do”, “the ability to use your judgment to make decisions and do things without needing to be told what to do”, synonyms “ambition, action, enterprise, drive, spirit, aggressiveness, vigor, hustle, energy, go, gumption, grit, spunk, assertiveness” etc. I think that paints a pretty clear picture.
This is what I have always understood by the word “agency” in the LW-sphere, at least when applied to people. The LW coinages “agenty” and “agentic” mean having agency in that sense.
So habitually starting things and letting them wither doesn’t cut it, and neither does nominally having some role but never executing it. It’s an inner quality that by its nature must manifest in outward actions.
The word “Agency” also has specific other, more technical uses. Here it is in philosophy, where it means something distantly similar but far broader. It’s a “porridge word” (Edward de Bono’s coinage), a hazy concept with little content that, like porridge, takes up the shape of whatever container it is put in. “Fake explanations” often consist of calling the thing to be explained by a porridge word.
Then there is “Agency” in the context of AIs having it, or being Agents. This is something that I don’t think the users of the word understand themselves. They’re trying to project human agency in the sense described above onto these giant weight matrices without having a non-mentalistic characterisation of the phenomenon they’re trying to find there. Not knowing what you’re looking for makes it difficult to find. From time to time I’ve suggested that control systems, hierarchically organised in a specific way, are the concept they need, but haven’t got much traction.
Thank you for taking the time to try and give me a broad overview of the different nuances of the word, unfortunately here the student has failed the teacher. I’m still very confused.
I previously have understood the porridge sense of agency (tangent—I like that phrase ‘porridge word’, reminds me of Minksy’s ‘suitecase word’) to be “an entity that has influence or can affect change”. Here on LW I have been brought to believe it just means acting, verging on thoughtlessly, which I understood to be since acting is the only way to catalyze change (i.e. change towards one’s goals).
I failed to explain my confusion: It’s not so much “letting them wither” let me put it another way: if you are in a bunker, there’s a armed conflict overhead, and therefore the smartest thing to do is “nothing” by staying put in the bunker, are you being agentic/acting agentically? The only things they can initiate at that point are unnecessary risk.
Likewise, I don’t mean nominally having some role. Not nominally but actually having the means, the power, the authority, the social status, the lack of negative repercussions to exercise the means, the knowledge but choosing not to exercise it because they evaluate it as not being worthwhile. They could initiate changes, but they rarely see the need, not from fear or reluctance, but from weighing up the pros and cons. Are they being agentic?
Agency here is not “change for the sake of change” but presumedly “acting in a way that materializes the agent’s goals” and that requires initiative, analogous to Aristotle’s Kinoun (Efficient) Cause—the carpenter who takes the initiative of making wood into a table. However the connotation of spunk, hustle, ambition etc. etc. and generally acting with energy and enthusiasm towards goals—knowing that these are not golden tickets to success (Necessary factors? Probably. Sufficient? Probably not.) -- confuses me what this quality is describing.
You’re looking at edge cases in order to understand the concept. I think looking at the centre works better than mapping out the periphery, which was my reason for giving those definitions and synonyms of “initiative”. If someone is in a situation where circumstances forestall any effective action, then to ask whether they are being “agentic” in doing nothing is like asking whether an unheard falling tree makes a sound.
I’m afraid I just have to give up on understanding what Agency means then. Thank you for trying though.
Unlike initiative because you can take initiative and it not deliver intended results. But it’s still initiative. While is being Agentic a potential or an actuality? I don’t know.