TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Two models for agentic AI
Despite all the commentary and hype around agentic AI, many big questions remain unaddressed, the biggest being which type of AI agent the tech industry is seeking to develop?
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Negotiating AI's future: Participants attend the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit on Feb. 10 in Paris. (Reuters/Benoit Tessier)
A
I “agents” are coming, whether we are ready or not. While there is much uncertainty about when AI models will be able to interact autonomously with digital platforms, other AI tools and even humans, there can be little doubt that this development will be transformative, whether for better or for worse.
Yet despite all the commentary (and hype) around agentic AI, many big questions remain unaddressed, the biggest being which type of AI agent the tech industry is seeking to develop?
Different models will have vastly different implications. With an “AI as adviser” approach, AI agents would offer individually calibrated recommendations to human decision-makers, leaving humans always in the driver’s seat. But with an “autonomous AI” model, agents will take the wheel on behalf of humans. That is a distinction with profound and far-reaching implications.
Humans make hundreds of decisions every day, some of which have major consequences for their careers, livelihoods or happiness. Many of these decisions are based on imperfect or incomplete information, determined more by emotions, intuitions, instincts or impulses.
As David Hume famously put it, “Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Humans may make most decisions without systematic reasoning or due attention to the full implications, but as Hume recognized with the “ought” part of his statement, this isn’t all bad. It is what makes us human. Passion reflects purpose, and it may also play a key role in how we cope with a complex world.
With AI advisers that provide customized, reliable, context-relevant, useful information, many important decisions can be improved, but human motives will remain dominant.
But what’s so bad about autonomous AI making decisions on our behalf? Couldn’t they improve decision-making even further, save time and prevent errors?
