“At the limit, rational agents who can negotiate with each other and adjust their beliefs and make binding commitments should form a single logical-decision-theoretic agent with many differently informed and specialized local information processing nodes”
(Can’t seem to switch from markdown so no inline)
I think that a question that this raises is if this should then be considered one larger agent or a collection of subagents? Is it not good for flexibility and resillience if the local nodes are able to take adaptive action over time?
I think we get into some very fun territory of distributed agency and hierarchical agency here.
Many nodes being a single logical agent is ideally compatible with them taking the sorts of adaptive actions over time consistent with being different causal (forwards-in-time) agents.
Could you link onto places or give a definition that makes these a little clearer, are we saying they act in equivalent ways with a given decision theory or how are you defining this?
“At the limit, rational agents who can negotiate with each other and adjust their beliefs and make binding commitments should form a single logical-decision-theoretic agent with many differently informed and specialized local information processing nodes”
(Can’t seem to switch from markdown so no inline)
I think that a question that this raises is if this should then be considered one larger agent or a collection of subagents? Is it not good for flexibility and resillience if the local nodes are able to take adaptive action over time?
I think we get into some very fun territory of distributed agency and hierarchical agency here.
Many nodes being a single logical agent is ideally compatible with them taking the sorts of adaptive actions over time consistent with being different causal (forwards-in-time) agents.
Could you link onto places or give a definition that makes these a little clearer, are we saying they act in equivalent ways with a given decision theory or how are you defining this?