Counterpoint: this is needlessly pedantic and a losing fight.
My understanding of the core argument is that “agent” in alignment/safety literature has a slightly different meaning than “agent” in RL. It might be the case that the difference turns out to be important, but there’s still some connection between the two meanings.
I’m not going to argue that RL inherently creates “agentic” systems in the alignment sense. I suspect there’s at least a strong correlation there (i.e. an RL-trained agent will typically create an agentic system), but that’s honestly beside the point.
The term “RL agent” is very well entrenched and de facto a correct technical term for that part of the RL formalism. Just because alignment people use that term differently, doesn’t justify going into neighboring fields and demanding them to change their ways.
It’s kinda like telling biologists that they shouldn’t use the word [matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(biology)) because actual matrices are arrays of numbers (or linear maps whatever, mathematicians don’t @ me)
And finally, as an example why even if I drank the kool-aid, I absolutely couldn’t do the switch you’re recommending—what about multiagent RL? Especially one with homogeneous agents. Doing s/agent/policy/g won’t work, because a multiagent algorithm doesn’t have to be multipolicy.
The appendix on s/reward/reinforcement/g is even more silly in my opinion. RL agents (heh) are designed to seek out the reward. They might fail, but that’s the overarching goal.
I’m… not demanding that the field of RL change? Where in the post did you perceive me to demand this? For example, I wrote that “I wouldn’t say ‘reinforcement function’ in e.g. a conference paper.” I also took care to write “This terminology is loaded and inappropriate for my purposes.”
Each individual reader can choose to swap to “policy” without communication difficulties, in my experience:
Don’t wait for everyone to coordinate on saying “policy.” You can switch to “policy” right now and thereby improve your private thoughts about alignment, whether or not anyone else gets on board. I’ve enjoyed these benefits for a month. The switch didn’t cause communication difficulties.
(As an aside, I also separately wish RL would change its terminology, but it’s a losing fight as you point out, and I have better things to do with my time.)
Counterpoint: this is needlessly pedantic and a losing fight.
My understanding of the core argument is that “agent” in alignment/safety literature has a slightly different meaning than “agent” in RL. It might be the case that the difference turns out to be important, but there’s still some connection between the two meanings.
I’m not going to argue that RL inherently creates “agentic” systems in the alignment sense. I suspect there’s at least a strong correlation there (i.e. an RL-trained agent will typically create an agentic system), but that’s honestly beside the point.
The term “RL agent” is very well entrenched and de facto a correct technical term for that part of the RL formalism. Just because alignment people use that term differently, doesn’t justify going into neighboring fields and demanding them to change their ways.
It’s kinda like telling biologists that they shouldn’t use the word [matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(biology)) because actual matrices are arrays of numbers (or linear maps whatever, mathematicians don’t @ me)
And finally, as an example why even if I drank the kool-aid, I absolutely couldn’t do the switch you’re recommending—what about multiagent RL? Especially one with homogeneous agents. Doing s/agent/policy/g won’t work, because a multiagent algorithm doesn’t have to be multipolicy.
The appendix on s/reward/reinforcement/g is even more silly in my opinion. RL agents (heh) are designed to seek out the reward. They might fail, but that’s the overarching goal.
I’m… not demanding that the field of RL change? Where in the post did you perceive me to demand this? For example, I wrote that “I wouldn’t say ‘reinforcement function’ in e.g. a conference paper.” I also took care to write “This terminology is loaded and inappropriate for my purposes.”
Each individual reader can choose to swap to “policy” without communication difficulties, in my experience:
(As an aside, I also separately wish RL would change its terminology, but it’s a losing fight as you point out, and I have better things to do with my time.)