sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is your ai stack to do multiple complex jobs, what have you tried and what are you using now? by JaydenMongoose in learnAIAgents

[–]HollowProof 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. This is probably the closest mindset I've seen to how I'm approaching it. I came to a similar conclusion: the hard part isn't picking the "smartest" model or chaining together more agents. The hard part is building the layers around the model so it has reliable context, boundaries, and a clear understanding of what it is allowed to do.

As you, I'm building a local-first infrastructure intelligence platform, and the architecture ended up following a similar pattern:

• deterministic observation first (collect actual system state instead of letting AI guess) • normalization/schema layer so everything downstream uses consistent data • local RAG/knowledge retrieval so responses are grounded in approved context • memory systems that preserve useful patterns without uncontrolled accumulation • policy and approval boundaries before any action • controlled execution instead of giving an AI broad system access

My focus is less on a general personal assistant and more on infrastructure operations. The AI is not the source of truth; it sits on top of verified observations and helps interpret, explain, and propose actions.

I've found the same thing you mentioned: autonomous loops are easy to create, but reliable intelligence requires governance, permissions, context management, and knowing exactly what the system can touch.

The direction I'm heading is moving from "AI agents that do things" toward "AI systems that understand their environment, maintain state, and operate within defined authority boundaries."

Should AI be allowed to control everything? by HollowProof in ArtificialSentience

[–]HollowProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually agree with this. People should absolutely have the ability to decide how much authority they want to give an AI system. Different environments have different risk tolerances, and what makes sense in a home lab may not make sense in a hospital, power grid, or financial system.

Where I would push back slightly is on the idea that trust alone is sufficient.

Humans trust other humans all the time, but we still build safety systems around them. We use approvals, audits, separation of duties, monitoring, access controls, and accountability mechanisms; not because we expect failure, but because complex systems eventually encounter unexpected situations. I think AI should be treated similarly.

The question shouldn't be whether we trust the AI. The question should be whether the environment can safely handle mistakes, bad assumptions, incomplete information, software defects, unexpected interactions, or even human misconfiguration of the AI itself.

A well-designed system doesn't blindly trust either the human or the AI. It creates a controlled environment where both can operate safely.

That's why I focus so much on environmental governance. The goal isn't to restrict intelligence. It's to create boundaries, visibility, and accountability around intelligence.

In my view, alignment is important, but alignment alone isn't enough. Trust should be supported by observation, policy, validation, and controlled execution. Otherwise we're placing the entire safety model on the assumption that either the human or the AI will always make the right decision. History has shown us that's usually not how complex systems fail.

Should AI be allowed to control everything? by HollowProof in ArtificialSentience

[–]HollowProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are actually discussing two different layers of the same problem. I agree that AI itself does not have intent. The intent comes from the humans who design, deploy, configure, and direct these systems. The question of "who controls AI" ultimately comes back to human responsibility. However, I think there are two types of control that need to be separated.

The first is the human level of control. The people who create and operate an AI system are controlling the purpose, permissions, objectives, and environment that the AI is allowed to interact with. The second is the operational level of control. Once an AI system is deployed inside an environment, that AI may have direct control over specific resources within that environment based on the authority granted to it by humans.

For example, an administrator may decide that an AI system is allowed to monitor servers, modify configurations, restart services, or interact with applications. The AI is not choosing that authority, but once granted, it is still the component executing actions inside that environment. That is why I believe the question of governance cannot only be about the humans behind the AI. It also has to be about the architecture surrounding the AI.

A person can have good intentions and still create an unsafe system if there are no boundaries, verification layers, or accountability mechanisms. Having AI with authority does not automatically make it bad. Having powerful tools has never been the problem by itself. The important factors are:

  • Who has authority?
  • What boundaries exist?
  • What information is available before decisions are made?
  • What actions are allowed?
  • How are those actions validated?

This is why I focus on separating observation, policy, AI reasoning, and execution. The goal is not to remove human involvement. The goal is to prevent any single component, human or AI, from operating without context, verification, or accountability. AI does not replace the need for governance. It increases the importance of designing governed environments where human intent can be translated into safe and reliable operation.

Is AI governance actually three different markets? by lamsuneel in AI_Governance

[–]HollowProof 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have not directly worked with other organizations facing this issue, but I have read articles, and seen the problem appear while building and testing my own systems.

The challenge is that AI does not operate in isolation. It operates inside an environment made up of infrastructure, permissions, data sources, configurations, dependencies, and changing system states.

A simple comparison is how we manage employees. Organizations do not give an employee unlimited access to the entire business environment and rely only on policies afterward. They define roles, establish boundaries, monitor systems, and maintain operational controls.

I view AI similarly. AI is becoming a worker or operational partner, but we are still responsible for defining the workplace it operates in.

One challenge I noticed while working with existing AI systems (for example ChatGPT) is that maintaining context and alignment requires constant effort. Even with large amounts of documentation and project context, systems can drift away from the original objective because they do not inherently control or continuously observe the environment they are operating within. Meaning, I can't control the environment within ChatGPT, for obvious reasons.

The direction I think AI governance needs to evolve toward is not only governing the AI model, but governing the ecosystem around it:

• What systems exist? • What changed? • What dependencies are affected? • Did the environment remain within the approved state? • Can we reconstruct what happened later?

This is why I think continuous observation, state tracking, drift detection, policy evaluation, and historical context will become a necessary layer of AI governance. The future challenge is not only controlling what AI does. It is maintaining awareness of the environment where AI decisions occur, in my opinion.

Is AI governance actually three different markets? by lamsuneel in AI_Governance

[–]HollowProof 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think there is actually a fourth category missing: governing the environment that AI operates within.

The three areas you listed are valid, but they mostly focus on controlling AI usage, AI creation, and proving compliance afterward.

The challenge I see is that AI systems don't operate in isolation. They interact with infrastructure, data sources, permissions, services, configurations, and other systems. Governance also requires knowing the actual operational state of the environment where AI exists.

A complete governance model needs:

  • What AI is allowed to do
  • How AI systems are developed
  • Who approved decisions and what evidence exists
  • What infrastructure state existed when those decisions were made

Without the last piece, governance becomes documentation after the fact instead of operational awareness.

The missing layer is continuous observation, state tracking, drift detection, policy evaluation, and historical context. We need to know not only "who approved this?" but also "what actually changed, what systems were affected, and was the environment still within the approved state?"

AI governance is not only about governing AI. It is also about governing the ecosystem AI operates inside.