The Law of Structural Determinism
Summary
The author argues that critical policy gates and execution permissions in AI agent systems must be enforced through deterministic logic rather than LLM semantic inference — AI interprets, but a governance layer enforces absolute boundaries.
Similar Articles
The Law of Defined Teleology
The article argues that effective governance of AI systems requires defining their purpose beyond just imposing rules and restrictions.
different approach for agentic AI for regulated industry - questions
Summarizes a deterministic, constraint-based approach for building AI agents in regulated finance, where the LLM only generates prose, numbers are cryptographically sealed, and auditability is ensured through separated layers.
Non-Determinism Doesn't Matter
A reflective blog post arguing that non-determinism in LLM output is not a fatal flaw for software development, since only the end result needs to be exact—not the path taken. The author advocates using AI to build deterministic, tested tools that agents can call, thereby harnessing randomness today to reduce randomness in future systems.
Sustaining AI safety: Control-theoretic external impossibility, intrinsic necessity, and structural requirements
This paper uses control theory to prove that externally enforced AI safety strategies will structurally fail once a system's effects exceed bounded external control, and that any remaining viable strategies must be intrinsic with specific structural requirements.
Your agent’s real policy is whatever its credentials allow
This post argues that written AI governance policy rarely becomes a hard runtime boundary — an agent's actual blast radius is determined by its credentials, not its prompts. It cites a Delinea survey where 99.7% of organizations had formal AI access policy, yet 87% reported an AI tool or agent reached sensitive data it shouldn't have, and discusses how the enforcement gap widens with subagents.