"Can act" is not the same as "has enough evidence to act"
Summary
The article distinguishes between an AI agent's authority to act and having sufficient evidence to justify actions, questioning where the check for adequate evidence should reside in agent systems.
Similar Articles
Permission to Act Is Not the Same as Evidence to Act
The article distinguishes between permission for AI agents to act and the evidence required to justify action, introducing the Organic Intelligence Protocol (OIP) to establish evidence boundaries, illustrated by a recent audit case study.
Today, if someone asks you to prove an AI agent was actually authorized to execute an action, what do you show them?
The article examines the challenge of proving AI agents' authorization for executing actions, emphasizing that mere credentials are insufficient and authorization must be pre-execution, policy-based, and verifiable.
When nobody says NO, who authorized YES?
The author argues that monitoring AI agent actions does not answer the authorization question, since the absence of an objection (no flag, timeout continuation, unresponsive reviewer) is not evidence that an action was permitted. They contend agents should act autonomously within defined authority, but systems must be able to establish why a given action was authorized beyond 'nobody stopped it'.
How do you actually know your AI agent did what it says it did?
The article discusses the challenge of verifying AI agent actions and advocates for immutable receipts to ensure trust and distinguish between bad decisions and non-existent ones.
What if the best AI agent is the one that knows when NOT to do something?
The article explores the importance of AI agents knowing when not to act, suggesting that better judgment about autonomy may be key to their future utility.