Attempted def: an "agent" is a collection of agents whose goals are sufficiently correlated that they *cannot* be achieved independently
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian agent := [1..n agents] or agent := ([1..n agents], [1..n goals])? Also, 0..n, 1..n or 2..n?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @allgebrah
@allgebrah I believe that I'm saying an agent is a rose tree with goals at the nodes fulfilling above consistency relation1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@allgebrah and if I'm reading you right, I was thinking 2..n though 1..n might make sense? Not sure what 0..n would even mean1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian 0: grounded/base agent (although I'm skeptical here as well) 1: a company with one employee can agents contain themselves?2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@The_Lagrangian re self-containing agents: it's entirely possible to subcontract yourself [in]directly, especially if you're a large corp
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.