Agency distinguished from Intelligence

I was turned onto this by some remarks by Andrej Karpathy, formerly one of the OpenAI founders (along with Elon), formerly head of AI at Tesla, and one of the legends of the AI world.

He says, "Agency > Intelligence

I had this intuitively wrong for decades, I think due to a pervasive cultural veneration of intelligence, various entertainment/media, obsession with IQ etc. Agency is significantly more powerful and significantly more scarce. Are you hiring for agency? Are we educating for agency? Are you acting as if you had 10X agency?"

The relevance to AI is that AI is starting to supply intelligence on tap. Whether it ever amounts to anything is a question of agency.

What's more, it seems to explain Elon's peculiar genius much better than IQ does. Certainly Elon is exceedingly smart. What else explains his ability to master so many advanced subjects (rocket engineering, artificial intelligence, strategic business planning to name a few) by independent study?

But probably a larger part of his genius is his almost superhuman agency. Determination to get things done, to accomplish things. It's how he managed to turn his visionary ideas into five companies each worth more than a billion dollars (and two, Tesla and SpaceX each worth an estimated $1.5 trillion each). (And before that he was one of the original Paypal mafia and one of the original founders of OpenAI.)

Grok the AI explains Agency this way:

“Agency, as a personality trait, refers to an individual's capacity to take initiative, make decisions, and exert control over their actions and environment. It’s about being proactive rather than reactive—someone with high agency doesn’t just let life happen to them; they shape it. Think of it as a blend of self-efficacy, determination, and a sense of ownership over one’s path.

People with strong agency tend to set goals and pursue them with confidence, even in the face of obstacles. They’re the type to say, “I’ll figure it out,” and then actually do it. On the flip side, someone low in agency might feel more like a passenger in their own life, waiting for external forces—like luck, other people, or circumstances—to dictate what happens next.

It’s not quite the same as assertiveness or ambition, though it can overlap. Agency is quieter, more internal—it’s the belief that you *can* act, paired with the will to follow through. Psychologists often tie it to concepts like locus of control: high-agency folks lean toward an internal locus, feeling they steer their fate, while low-agency folks might lean external, seeing life as something that happens *to* them.”

Yeah, without some degree of agency, intelligence is useless. It's like all of Wikipedia if no one ever read it. It's what people do with the intelligence that matters. There are even plenty of examples of people not being especially intelligent but accomplishing a lot just out of their drive to do stuff. A lot of sports careers are likely much more agency than intelligence.

The low sense of personal agency does tend to correlate with things like blaming others or feeling like a victim. A high sense of agency correlates with more resilient people who know they can handle what's thrown at them and are more likely to take failures as learning opportunities.

Agency! I think you're on to something there. I don't think we (US and UK) have a recognised word with the definition of it. School reports might say "He will go far" without having a word for the quality they're referring to . "The one to watch" doesn't really address the feet paddling away below the surface. Not always a good thing .. Maduro and Trump may have more similarities than differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

I am not convinced that the Wiki definition of 'agency' meets the requirements of what Yazata and this thread are addressing. Henry Ford springs to mind but 'Ford' just doesn't have the right resonance.. ??? Fordnosity?? Musknosity??

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall...es/agency/

AGENT | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › agent
a person who acts for or represents another: Please contact our agent in Spain for further information. a person who represents another

“Money talks, poverty walks” ….my BIL’s favourite expression. I like “luck favors those who are prepared”. Don’t think you can casually brush aside luck in Musk’s or any billionaire’s case.

True story: Company I worked for had an innovation awards program for employees to contribute ideas. In one case an employee developed a prototype tool he personally designed that would aid field workers and save muchmoney. It was rejected, no cash award but 3 years later a representative came by to demonstrate to field crews the exact device my coworker had designed. Nothing you can do, it was Intellectual Property, belonged to company and they were under no obligation to award the designer anything. Understand it needed certain approvals which are costly plus everything from patents to safety to distribution also involved. Obviously the company’s engineers liked the original but it needed cash to come to fruition, thus my BIL’s quote rings true.

I would have to think Musk, the man with the money has enough paid advisors to know what’s good for him and his company. Still Musk has not been successful everywhere. Tesla EV’s rated class 2 for autonomy, driver required to be at the wheel just in case vehicle doesn’t respond properly. He’s spent millions on designing the 100% autonomous vehicle with no success. That pales to Apple which spent billions on autonomy but eventually gave up. Right now I’m sure he’s paying a lot just for some more luck. If he gets it then someone will credit him with agency. I’ve been wrong before…

Well, that employee could have opted to forego a quick award and spent the time, money, and effort to patent the tool himself (more agency). Then he could have sold it to that and other companies, potentially building his own wealth.

Musk started out trying to build electric cars on his own. He could have developed it up to a certain point and look to sell the patents, but he didn't. He thought he could go further, do more (have more agency).

(Dec 27, 2025 05:58 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: “Money talks, poverty walks” ….my BIL’s favourite expression. I like “luck favors those who are prepared”. Don’t think you can casually brush aside luck in Musk’s or any billionaire’s case.

True story: Company I worked for had an innovation awards program for employees to contribute ideas. In one case an employee developed a prototype tool he personally designed that would aid field workers and save muchmoney. It was rejected, no cash award but 3 years later a representative came by to demonstrate to field crews the exact device my coworker had designed. Nothing you can do, it was Intellectual Property, belonged to company and they were under no obligation to award the designer anything. Understand it needed certain approvals which are costly plus everything from patents to safety to distribution also involved. Obviously the company’s engineers liked the original but it needed cash to come to fruition, thus my BIL’s quote rings true.

I would have to think Musk, the man with the money has enough paid advisors to know what’s good for him and his company. Still Musk has not been successful everywhere. Tesla EV’s rated class 2 for autonomy, driver required to be at the wheel just in case vehicle doesn’t respond properly. He’s spent millions on designing the 100% autonomous vehicle with no success. That pales to Apple which spent billions on autonomy but eventually gave up. Right now I’m sure he’s paying a lot just for some more luck. If he gets it then someone will credit him with agency. I’ve been wrong before…

Every car companies sales montage is about buying a car to complement your manhood while selling the ability to drive as "freedom".

That unfortunately is counter-intuitive to self-drive cars as they drive themselves, the companies programming decides on how and where you can drive and even then there is subsequent other points (such a the raw consumption of resources for building and fueling vehicles, which increases with cost every time one made let alone sold.)

It's part of the reason why moving towards fleet systems (taxis, buses etc.) Although it seems socialist, it makes the most sense to keep costs down for everyone (and companies can make a better margin, grow and diversify).

The problem at that point however is getting people onboard with it since it's a centuries worth of marketing manipulating people to be materialist, it means a complete ideological curve ball to most of them.

As for Elons finances... I'd assume it's a lot of plate spinning, while he might make a loss while making some changes on one thing, he'll be spinning something somewhere else until the tides change in his favour. (Thats why people with money can make money, and people who are poor get screwed by one bad deal)