The post is a good explanation on multi agent model of mind. I’ve used this frame and agree that it’s useful. But that’s not the problem I’m trying to adress. The problem is that this can’t possibly be the ground truth. Neither do I find it likely that this model a correct explanation at some middle level of reduction.
I’ve seen people in shard theory, and most lately this, where someone takes the subagent perspective to be way to fundamental.
I claim that you have conflicting goals, and for some people it’s sometimes useful to model yourself as being made up of conflicting sub agents. But you aren’t literally made up of different sub agent. The muli agent model of mind is probably good enough for self therapy, but it’s not good enough for alignment research.
The problem with taking this model too seriously (and not just as an useful tool) is that it has the homunculus problem. You still have to explain how agency works. Turns out minds are complicated! And when you start thinking about how to fit even one functional agent in a brain, you realize that there are not going to be lot’s of them.
My shortform was about how come, even though there is no parliament, this is style of self therapy works anyway.
No, I totally agree the post’s frame isn’t a ground truth - IIRC I say so up front. I don’t think I agree that it can’t possibly be correct at some middle level of reduction, but I agree that that sense lacks firm grounding. I hadn’t been clear that you were thinking about a frame for understanding agency in generality; I was however trying to contribute more thinking to the self-therapy ideas you lay out in the shortform.
Oh, I guess I’m less clear that I though. My goal is not to suggest self therapy ideas. I’m naming them as evidence of multi agent of mind, that has to be explained some other way if there are in fact no multi agents.
You might find it helpful to read one of my Budget Inkhaven submissions, then—I think in depth about a parliamentary model of the self, not just simple IFS or shard theory. https://tiled-with-pentagons.blogspot.com/2026/04/82-deadlock-in-parliament-of-self.html
The post is a good explanation on multi agent model of mind. I’ve used this frame and agree that it’s useful. But that’s not the problem I’m trying to adress. The problem is that this can’t possibly be the ground truth. Neither do I find it likely that this model a correct explanation at some middle level of reduction.
I’ve seen people in shard theory, and most lately this, where someone takes the subagent perspective to be way to fundamental.
I claim that you have conflicting goals, and for some people it’s sometimes useful to model yourself as being made up of conflicting sub agents. But you aren’t literally made up of different sub agent. The muli agent model of mind is probably good enough for self therapy, but it’s not good enough for alignment research.
The problem with taking this model too seriously (and not just as an useful tool) is that it has the homunculus problem. You still have to explain how agency works. Turns out minds are complicated! And when you start thinking about how to fit even one functional agent in a brain, you realize that there are not going to be lot’s of them.
My shortform was about how come, even though there is no parliament, this is style of self therapy works anyway.
No, I totally agree the post’s frame isn’t a ground truth - IIRC I say so up front. I don’t think I agree that it can’t possibly be correct at some middle level of reduction, but I agree that that sense lacks firm grounding. I hadn’t been clear that you were thinking about a frame for understanding agency in generality; I was however trying to contribute more thinking to the self-therapy ideas you lay out in the shortform.
Oh, I guess I’m less clear that I though. My goal is not to suggest self therapy ideas. I’m naming them as evidence of multi agent of mind, that has to be explained some other way if there are in fact no multi agents.
You probably wrote this comment before I was done writing?
Maybe? I’m not sure, apologies.