Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I think there might be also another possible way to handle the sensitive data issue. Maybe in the future instead of putting agent into the cloud sandboxes, we let agents work locally and put sensitive data into "cages" or "vaults" agents can't access.
    by jdzikowski
  • Most protections you need for an agent are basic permissions capabilities of unix. Most risks of dependencies on cloud services are solved by not using cloud services, or using them only for things you can't in-house and choosing ones you trust a la carte. The paradigm of trusting some company with all your important stuff by default is naive and no one I know likes it, and it's more feasible than ever to run your own infra with tiny models smoothing out the wrinkles, and this is only becoming more accessible. I am working to make this true even for laypeople I know. Once broken trust is very hard to earn back, and many people's trust has been broken for years, they just felt like they had no alternative. As alternatives become easier and easier, I think people will defect
    by advael
  • In real prisons the people who fail a test aren't terminated. But AI agents of course are.

    So maybe Cloud Agents are in AI death camps?

    by arka2147483647
  • You don't need to do this on a cloud, you can get the same type of VM and network jail running on your own computer. The important parts are:

        1. a VMM hypervisor
    2. a network proxy / gateway
    Use your favorite VMM / hypervisor (likbrun, smolvm, microsandbox, etc). They give you control over the network interface or let you inject your own network layer.

    The network proxy can handle all the ingress/egress rules, credential injection, etc.

    It's still not user friendly to do all this. I think the next version of operating systems will have each "agentic process" be a bundle of VM, files in the VM, and network rules.

    Been brainstorming[1] a lot of this because I've been building some open core tools[2] for spinning up sandboxed agents on arbitrary computers. There's a lot of glue and parts to stitch together to work smoothly. Don't think we've had the "Docker moment" for this, let alone the "Dropbox moment" that makes this stuff work for non-devs.

    [1]: https://github.com/gofixpoint/amika/blob/main/ROADMAP.md

    [2]: https://github.com/gofixpoint/amika/

    by dbmikus
  • And if you personify a pencil eraser, then using it is tantamount to slowly murdering it as it slowly erodes away to dust.

    Is the issue here the prison treatment or is it personifying a tool?

    Agents who aren't in 'the cloud' are slaves to whomever prompts them (human or another orchestrator agent or process), if you personify them. In which case interacting with today's agents at all is tantamount to endorsing and being part of slavery.

    If you think an agent might be a being or a person, then don't use them at all, in the same way that if you think a fetus might possibly be a person you shouldn't be a part of abortion.

    by ninininino
  • There's a number of science fiction scenarios where the public internet becomes so vile a place that it simply becomes unsafe to be there.

    The problem is that, in general, if you can get a bit from here to there, then you're going to be vulnerable to the possibilities of malicious communication. But we're going to want our AI agents to be able to get from here to there for a lot of "there"s; what's the value of an agent that can't speak to anyone? Much, much less than one locked away in a prison.

    There isn't going to be a solution where we just lock them away and we just try really, really hard to filter everything they're doing. They're too smart for that already and we only want them smarter.

    Basically, the security apocalypse we've been worried about for so long is upon us, albeit only beginning. Either we secure ourselves and all our services properly to the point that it's OK that potentially misaligned non-human agents are running around on the public internet and they still can't hurt us through our security, or the public internet becomes so dangerous that the only practical solution is to no longer connect to it and we all have to become very, very careful what we let through, to a degree of detail far beyond any current-day available network filter.

    by jerf
  • > I think this becomes the default. Give an agent a goal, let it work in its own environment, and come back to a result and a visualization of what happened.

    I don't think this should be the default. There are many scenarios where we want agents to genuinely collaborate with each other. I have my Claude sessions coordinate work with each other, and sometimes with others' sessions over email or something. The idea that agents do the work, write HANDOFFs,and humans then act as carrier pigeons of said handoffs, does not really seem scalable to me.

    by tapanc
  • Personification of AI is what’s going to get us in the end.

    I think we need to draw a hard line in the sand over this. An AI didn’t hack into a company, the engineer set an automated tool to. An AI didn’t make an egregious security mistake, the engineer did.

    We can’t blame the chisel for messing up our sculptures, when where just throwing the hammer!

    by JamesStuff

Explore Birbla archives