Death To Agency

Human-shaped Roombas happily following the algorithm

Welcome to Better Short - Ideas or stories expressed in 500 words or less.

This throwaway joke I made about Bryan Johnson triggered a new train of thought.

A 15-year-old from the soot-covered industrial era of the early 1900s time-travels to today. Seeing a 28-year-old Silicon Valley coder sipping AG1 and scrolling through Naval Ravikant tweets, he concludes that this is a child wearing a man’s body.

Civilization’s primary purpose is comfort. In return, it softens us. Less braving the weather; more ergonomic chairs. Fire made us soft, agriculture made us lazy, and the internal combustion engine made us immobile. Sure, the washing machine made us cleaner, but it made us fear grime like the devil.

The impact of civilizational progress is softness. Which, by itself, isn’t a terrible thing. But technology doesn’t just make life easier; it erodes our agency.

Technology and the death of agency

Fifteen years ago, I accompanied my parents to buy a refrigerator. It was a half-day affair—visiting stores, comparing features, debating pros and cons. We felt like we made a real choice. Two weeks ago, I helped them buy a new one online. It took ten minutes: fewer options and oddly worse features, but I trusted the algorithm and the collective reviews. The illusion of choice was enough.

Technology’s core promise is comfort in exchange for control. Initially, this erosion of agency happened over centuries. Now, it’s a flood—accelerated by the internet, smartphones, and AI.

We are wonderfully, horrifyingly free from the burden of choice.

But we don’t see it that way. The algorithm doesn’t impose; it suggests. It doesn’t demand; it curates. We’re all human-shaped Roombas, rolling from one recommendation to the next.

My music discovery is all YouTube Music recommendations now. I’ve lost the patience to follow rabbit holes and find new artists myself.

---

I noticed recently with my six-year-old nephew that every choice requires negotiation. If I say 10, he says 2. We settle at 5. It’s exhausting, but it made me realize that this is one of the last places genuine human agency still exists.

I wonder for how long. Once embedded in the cosiness of algorithmic living, will his instinct survive? Resistance is now an alien impulse for most of us.

Why rage against the machine when the machine is a portal to infinite entertainment? Even those lamenting AI’s rise do so on platforms designed to turn their outrage into content. The machine doesn’t crush dissent; it metabolizes it, refines it and sells it back as 30-second clips.

AI’s real threat is the death of human agency

Shannon Vallor argues that AI won’t become Skynet, but instead, the real threat is far duller (and deadlier): it will erode our ability to decide for ourselves.

AI is a mirror, reflecting our inputs without understanding. Yet, we’ll begin treating its outputs as independent, rational judgments. Over time, we’ll stop trusting our instincts and defer to the machine, like a GPS-raised generation, forgetting how to map spaces visually in our heads.

Decisions will be made for us before we even consider them. This is fine for buying a new electric toothbrush but disastrous for social, ethical, and political choices.

Agency is a muscle. Once atrophied, we won’t use it anywhere.

The politics of passivity

Passive people are easy to govern. The internet promised transparency but delivered an attention economy where propaganda moves fast. Engagement beats accuracy 100% of the time.

In high-agency eras, we get revolutions. In low-agency eras, we get infinite entertainment, twitter jokes and daily shows.

If the only ones left with agency are the madmen, the power-hungry, and the sociopaths who recognize the vacuum and step in to fill it, then they will end up owning the world. Lack of agency is a gift to authoritarian regimes.

Which, if nothing else, should make us all a little uneasy.

Better Short,

Tyag