GPT doesn't seem to care which agent it simulates, nor if the scene ends and the agent is effectively destroyed.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Is GPT an agent?question0.815
  Frequently asked question disambiguated by simulator/simulacra distinction.
• GPT, insofar as it is inner-aligned, is a simulator which can simulate agentic and non-agentic simulacra.claim0.812
  Central thesis of the post.
• I do not think any simple modification of the concept of an agent captures GPT's natural category; GPT is not a roleplayer, only that it roleplays.claim0.803
  Rejection of the agent interpretation.
• GPT is corrigible in a negative sense because the agent specification (prompt) is not fixed by the policy and the policy lacks direct training incentives to control its prompt.claim0.797
  GPT's corrigibility explained.
• GPT does not generate rollouts during training, so there is no reason to expect that GPT will form preferences over the consequences of its output related to the text prediction objective.claim0.794
  Argues against instrumental convergence in GPT.
• GPT's ability to simulate text automata is the source of its most surprising and pivotal implications for paths to superintelligence.claim0.788
  Importance of recursive generation.
• What we call GPT's 'downstream behavior' is the behavior of simulacra; it is primarily through simulacra that GPT has potential to perform meaningful work.claim0.776
  Clarifies where agency resides.
• In the agentic AI ontology, there is no difference between the policy and the effective agent, but for GPT, there is.claim0.773
  Key insight distinguishing GPT from traditional agent models.