In the agentic AI ontology, there is no difference between the policy and the effective agent, but for GPT, there is.

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

• GPT doesn't seem to care which agent it simulates, nor if the scene ends and the agent is effectively destroyed.claim0.773
  Illustrates the simulator-simulacra distinction.
• 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.claim0.759
  GPT's corrigibility explained.
• Intrinsic links between ontology and ethics are evident in how all intelligent agents respond to perceived mismatch between what is and what should be.claim0.758
  Bridges descriptive model (SCI loops) to normative framework (ethics).
• 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.claim0.755
  Rejection of the agent interpretation.
• Is GPT an agent?question0.752
  Frequently asked question disambiguated by simulator/simulacra distinction.
• Agentic AI ontologyframework0.745
  The traditional alignment framework focusing on agents optimized to pursue goals.
• GPT, insofar as it is inner-aligned, is a simulator which can simulate agentic and non-agentic simulacra.claim0.744
  Central thesis of the post.
• Smith & Boyd (1991) criteria are irrelevant across the vast majority of the space of possible agents.claim0.742
  Dismissal of earlier criteria as too narrow.