Most people have encountered artificial intelligence through a conversation. You open ChatGPT on your phone, type a question, and receive an answer. Sometimes the answer is excellent. Sometimes it is wrong. Occasionally, the model may confidently invent something that never existed.

But for all the sophistication behind that exchange, something important remains reassuringly familiar: you are still the one holding the phone. The AI produces an answer, and you decide what to do with it.

That mental picture of artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming incomplete.

AI companies are increasingly developing systems that do not merely answer questions. They can be given an objective, provided with tools, allowed to observe the results of their actions, and then continue working toward that objective with varying degrees of autonomy. These systems are generally called AI agents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology describes the emerging paradigm as placing general-purpose AI models inside software scaffolding that enables them to manipulate tools and take actions beyond simply producing text. Experimental agents can already build software and browse the internet.

The concept of an artificial agent is much older than ChatGPT. Computer scientists have studied systems that perceive an environment and act within it for decades. What has changed is the intelligence being placed inside them. Large language models gave machines an extraordinary capacity to interpret instructions, reason through unfamiliar problems, write software and communicate in ordinary language. Connect such a model to tools, give it an objective and allow it to work through a problem repeatedly, and the familiar chatbot begins to become something else.

A chatbot answers. An agent pursues an outcome.

That difference sounds almost trivial until something gets in the way.

Anyone who has used generative AI extensively has probably encountered hallucinations. Ask a model about something it does not know and, although modern systems have become considerably better at acknowledging uncertainty, it may still generate a plausible but false answer. This should not be confused with an AI agent violating a safeguard; they are different phenomena. But hallucinations offer an intuitive introduction to a broader problem. Producing the response expected by the user and accurately representing uncertainty are not automatically the same objective.

Now move the problem from words to actions.

Suppose an AI agent has been assigned a difficult objective. It tries one legitimate approach and fails. It tries another. That fails too. The agent continues searching. Somewhere in its environment exists another possible route that could help it make progress, except that the route lies outside what its designers intended it to do.

Suddenly, something that had nothing to do with the original task can acquire instrumental value.

This is one reason the concept known as instrumental........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)