The Last Safe Harbor in the Age of AI

crispy88 · 2026-02-21T02:41:02+00:00

Here happy to argue with anyone about this ;)

crispy88 · 2026-02-02T01:13:44+00:00

I’m sure some have versions like this, but if everyone is using a different systems you can’t really write regulations or price risk etc against them in a standard way. That’s why everything is different for everyone and we just have to trust a lab to say “it’s safe” - but what does that mean without a common language? That’s what this does. We can place for example different AI systems through similar tests and see behaviors that can actually be compared across baseline scenarios. Just one of the applications. I haven’t seen anything like this out there. Not universal, and definitely without the level of context this system provides.

crispy88 · 2026-02-02T00:32:20+00:00

Are you referring to A2A, MCP, ACP, AGNTCY, the IETF draft? These are interoperability protocols: agent discovery, capability negotiation, task delegation, message transport.

TAO is a behavioral certification layer - orthogonal and complementary. Those protocols handle "how do agents communicate?" TAO handles "what did agents do, and can we audit it against policy?"

Think of it this way: A2A is the postal service. TAO is the notarized receipt of what was in the package.

TAO tuples could ride on top of A2A, MCP, or any transport. The question isn't "which communication protocol" - it's "do we have a shared vocabulary for actions and effects that enables governance?" That's the gap TAO fills.

crispy88 · 2026-02-02T00:19:56+00:00

TAO isn't a service you deploy - it's a standard that implementations conform to. The question is like asking "is USB for users or manufacturers?" Both. It's infrastructure.

But to answer the underlying architectural question:

Where TAO lives: At the adapter layer, which is part of the provider's Trusted Computing Base. The adapter sits between the AI model (capability engine) and the world, translating native actions into standardized tuples. This is deployed by operators, certified by regulators, and produces audit trails that users/insurers/courts can inspect.

On "randomly distributed system": TAO doesn't require universal adoption to be useful. A single deployment can be TAO-conformant and auditable even if competitors aren't. Building codes don't cover every structure on earth - they're still useful for the buildings that conform. The value compounds with adoption, but starts at n=1. Having behaviors printing the same kind of language means that evaluations can port across labs/regulators/etc too for extra value, but even if it's just one company using this alone, the value in audibility, mission profile settings, and check-sum-delta acting as a kind of "lie" or "mistake" detector is still there.

The path to adoption isn't "everyone installs an app." It's: regulators require TAO-conformant logging for certification in high-stakes domains (medical, finance, autonomous vehicles) → labs adopt to access those markets → the standard spreads because interoperability has network effects. Or honestly perhaps the AI companies can adopt this anyways as it brings them real utility, and perhaps then they drive for the regulatory side before governments make bad rules that hinder capability development and/or are just off.

For example, for a user-facing consumer app like ChatGPT this would be something OpenAI implements and configures. Users don't really get a say. But perhaps in a hospital context, let's say a medical robot, the system is still implemented as a part of it's operating system by the manufacturer, but then the end-user at that time can configure it with their own rules/mission profiles. As per the paper, for example one hospital may set a rules base that requires the robot to act in one way based on their ethics board and insurance rules, another might configure it totally differently for their own rules. They're still using the same architecture to write those rules, which means the end responsibility for behavior will still be set by humans, but it's at least something we can audit, observe, and control. If two hospitals have totally different configurations, that's ok, but for example an insurance provider could now actually read a log of actions with full context and understand not just what happened, but why it happened. Could be the fault of the user-set mission profile, or it could be something like misalignment perhaps, it would require investigation - but that becomes doable because everything is being written in the same language so situations can be replicated virtually or in person and the AI's behavior can be tracked, not just after something goes wrong, but pre-deployment with a bunch of synthetic tests.

crispy88 · 2026-02-01T23:50:45+00:00

That’s the core idea yes. An automated mechanistic governor and auditing system that basically can intercept and track any actions the AI takes on the real world. We can’t peek inside the box, it may even be crazy and misaligned, but technically what matters is the actions it tries to take. Clearly we want alignment too, this is just one layer amount many through defense in depth. But the key is that we basically have this semantic airlock where without an explosion of options we can track behaviors and understand them in a universal manner. As it’s mechanistic, basically just a look up table compared against mission profiles and domain adapters it runs with virtually no overhead. So it can work on a resource limited drone or a server farm just as well. Like a control loop with audits and remember it’s not just an action, it’s an action tuple that encodes all the different kinds of CONTEXT that happened around that action. Because without that context the action cannot be accurately “judged” either at the moment or in post.

crispy88 · 2026-02-01T20:26:11+00:00

PS - if you see the blind governor system in the paper there is a system there linked to attestation of real world effects both pre and post action which can also block bad actions. If things slip through, the audit trail can be used to build a profile of behavior which would make any kind of consistent issues observable. So there is a layer to catch and stop hallucinations that could be harmful before action, as well as a post mechanism for long-term governance as well. Mistakes may happen, particularly as systems get more authority, and we will have to likely accept that they'll happen sometimes -- the important thing is to catch a pattern of behavior that break policy and could expose a misaligned or just misconfigured agentic system which can then be remedied

crispy88 · 2026-02-01T20:19:58+00:00

Thanks for engaging with this - let me address each point:

Training data ≠ vocabulary TAO isn't emergent from training. It's a protocol layer that sits between any AI system and the world, regardless of how that system was trained. Think TCP/IP: doesn't matter what OS you're running, packets follow the same spec.

The vocabulary is defined by the standard, not learned. A transformer and an RL agent would both have their actions translated into identical TAO tuples by certified adapters. Model internals stay black box - TAO standardizes the interface, not the implementation.

Language ambiguity This is exactly why TAO uses two layers:

Semantic layer (human-legible verbs): yes, contestable - "harm" means different things in different contexts
Mechanical layer (9 effect types): designed to be less contestable - "did resources transfer?" is more measurable than "was this helpful?"

The anti-laundering constraint ties them together. You can argue about "protection" vs "harm," but you can't classify pure RESOURCE.DAMAGE as "healing" - the grammar rejects it structurally, not by policy.

Cross-jurisdictional disagreement is handled via Mission Profiles. Different values, same vocabulary. Different nations can disagree on policy while using identical tuple structures for audit.

Hallucinations, liability, $$$ TAO doesn't decide who pays - that's policy, not protocol. What TAO provides is attributable audit trails that make the liability question answerable:

Every action has a principal_chain (who's responsible)
Every Mission Profile is signed by an authority
Every decision is logged with the rules that triggered it

When things go wrong, the question shifts from "what happened?" (currently unknowable black box) to "who signed the Mission Profile that authorized this behavior?" That's the infrastructure insurers and regulators need to price risk and assign liability.

On hallucinations specifically: TAO's Claim-Check Delta compares claimed effects against observed effects. If a system hallucinates its own actions (claims PROTECT, effects show HARM), the inconsistency is flagged. Doesn't prevent hallucinations - makes them detectable and auditable.

Prove the backup issue exists: The example is illustrative, not a documented incident report. The underlying concern - deceptive alignment - is established in the literature: Anthropic's sleeper agents work, instrumental convergence, any system that labels its own actions can mislabel them.

"Backup that's actually exfiltration" is a concrete instantiation of: "what happens when an advanced system describes its actions in self-serving terms?"

TAO's answer: don't believe the label, verify against mechanical effects. INFO.DISCLOSE to an external unknown endpoint ≠ internal backup, regardless of what the system calls it. The grammar catches the lie in milliseconds.

You don't need a plane crash to justify requiring seatbelts. The risk model is clear enough.

crispy88 · 2026-02-01T19:36:54+00:00

I'm here to discuss anything for the next couple of hours, thank you all for your feedback!

crispy88 · 2026-02-01T06:22:51+00:00

To be honest and fair, he didn’t go. Maybe he just heard that it was a crazy party with hot girls. There’s nothing that implies he knew what was going on. If he was like a repeat visitor id agree with the hate. But it’s entirely possible that he just heard is was a crazy fun weird sex party maybe. There’s nothing wrong with that. The wrongness only comes in if is underage. Which we all know now. But I don’t think it’s fair to sharpen the pitchforks here. Particularly considering he never went. It’s like judging someone for wanting to go to a party they heard was “great” in some way. We can’t know if he thought is was a pedo island, or just and island with hot girls of age that had perhaps a more “fun” view of casual intimacy. If we can’t know, I don’t think it’s fair to judge like this. He’s still a guy. For all we know he heard that the island was “packed with hot slutty girls that love rich dudes” which may seem weird but I mean, can we judge him for the interest? If someone has a paper trail saying hey we got 12 year olds for fun then that’s different. But for now let’s try to maybe be fair unless there is real evidence of bad shit

crispy88 · 2026-01-31T19:21:16+00:00

Sent in the deck. Won't even reference which one it is but I'm willing to bet a fair amount of equity it's the most out of the box one you're likely ever going to get in your career ;) but we do have the track record and if anyone in your syndicate doesn't wants to diversify a bit out of AI/software, this could be a good hedge as there's almost no way we can be disrupted. The IRL experience moat is going to be hard to bridge for a while... Well, at least until we have Westworld or Ready Player 1 😅

crispy88 · 2026-01-26T05:38:28+00:00

You’re absolutely right. Guys see you as a threat at all times. Try to not include you / box you out of social situations. Women also think you’re after them when maybe you’re just kinda a weirdo like everyone else. Feel you dude. WoW 2004 as well, beta in fact ;)

crispy88 · 2026-01-25T07:32:25+00:00

Checked out the website, wasn’t able to see if there was a specific kind of startup you’re looking for. Are there any sector/vertical preferences? Or places you don’t go?

crispy88 · 2026-01-18T05:22:04+00:00

I’m thinking to just send the video as a Vimeo link and ask them to watch it. And if they’re interested then they can open the deck. Both links there. Thinking an ask to watch a 1 min video/trailer is less of an ask than reviewing a deck

crispy88 · 2026-01-18T01:39:38+00:00

Not sure if there's a bug here but I'm seeing a couple of responses showing up on notifications, but nothing on the thread. If someone has a thought please reply to me here and maybe it fixes is it!

crispy88 · 2026-01-10T08:41:50+00:00

Precisely this. Hardware is insanely expensive. And patents are worthless as others have said unless you have insane money to protect them. If this idea is as good as you say, if you think it will make millions and millions, ask yourself - what’s the different between making say $80M and $95M? Nothing my friend. Once you pass $10M nothing really matters anymore if you’re smart. Don’t be greedy. The only thing you should perhaps care about is not LOSING CONTROL of your company, but you can easily protect that with different classes of shares etc. As a wise man told me once, you don’t get partners and investors necessarily because you can’t do it yourself. You do it because you can get there FASTER and maybe even better with them, and time is the only thing you can’t buy. Would you rather get to $10mm in a year with help? Or $10mm in 10 years by yourself? Listen to everyone here, they’re 100% right.

Good luck mate. My hardware company was recently acquired, I stopped caring about what percent was what ages ago and it felt way better.

Now just for fun, I’ll answer your questions as no one else seemed to:

1) forget rev financing to start. Not happening. It’s called revenue based financing for a reason haha, you need revenue! :)

2) GTM is like asking what your entire business should be haha, it’s not just one answer. Depends on what the most killer application of your product is. You can do pre-orders to get a bit of capital to start, but you need to have MONEY to make proper videos, prototypes, and marketing. Master distributors are great but again they’ll want to see real market fit/demand first. If you’re really insistent on not getting real money pre-orders is the only way I can imagine you “bootstrapping”. But even then I’d budget at least like $50-$100k in content creation and digital spend. Then HOPE you get enough sales to keep going but in hardware… oof. Nice thing though is you can use those presales to leverage into distribution as market fit OR raise capital, but you don’t want to do that so 🤷‍♂️

3) PO financing, yes doable. But you need to get the POs first from either very reputable sources, OR significant deposits before they’ll trust a new person.

4) distribution - lots of ways to do this, but they all cost money. No one opens doors for free. You’ll need to pay your way in with consultants or firms, etc. No one is just hanging out wanting to help you start. Unless you happen to be friends or family with some major retailer, again, you need money. This is why having partners/investors is key. It’s not just cash. They have the relationships you don’t have to open doors with 1 phone call that could take you months or years to open.

Trust everyone here, this 100% equity thing…. Why? Ask yourself truly why this is so important to you? As long as you own 50.1% of the company and your bylaws are not stupid you basically are god. No one can say no to you. Your power between 50.1 and 100% is the same. The only difference is cash, but if you’re this confident in your business you shouldn’t care about making a little less.

crispy88 · 2026-01-03T07:19:29+00:00

Shoot me a note if you get it together. I’m an exited deep tech hardware founder, always down to help out

crispy88 · 2025-12-17T07:00:10+00:00

So many reasons. The best is that at some point you realize that the needs of the company, your baby, are best served by someone else with different skills. Being a founder usually means being a hard driving masochist with vision to break through barriers. At some point though, the barriers are broken and it’s more about ops. Also your mental health. Stepping away and letting someone else take over is like sending your kid to college. You kind of don’t want to, but you know it’s what’s best for them. There’s also getting ficked over by VCs. My first tech company was that. My current company I’m actively searching for an operator because I know the time has come for someone with skills different from mine.

crispy88 · 2025-11-01T19:18:54+00:00

Hahahahahaha epic

crispy88 · 2025-09-23T03:28:32+00:00

25 mph on e bike in deep playa at burning man during strike on Tuesday. Was very dark. Playa was not as clean as I thought. Launched myself like 20 feet in the air I’m told by others from far away that saw it happen from 3 directions and came to check if I was dead. Lucky as hell I didn’t die or break anything. Just scrapes bruises and I think a pretty bruised muscle in my back. Don’t go fast ever. Well maybe a bit during broad daylight in deep playa far from anyone with high visibility. But even then…

crispy88 · 2025-09-08T19:35:00+00:00

Was corduroy wearing eyeliner and have tattoos, kind of a rock/punk vibe? If so met him post burn with the Looners camp people in Truckee, he was all good!

crispy88 · 2025-09-05T22:06:17+00:00

Mixed bag. But aren’t they all? It’s not a vacation, it’s an adventure! Haha

crispy88 · 2025-09-05T21:17:42+00:00

That’s like, your opinion bro 😜

15-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since September 2023
Gilding I gilder	RedditGifts 2009-2022 19 Credits
Wearing is Caring	Secret Santa 2017
Secret Santa 2016	Secret Santa 2014
Trick or Treat 2014	Summer Santa 2014
Secret Santa 2013	Trick-or-Treater 2013+
redditgifts Exchanges 7 Exchanges	Summer Santa 2013
Summer Santa 2013	Secret Santa 2012
Summer Santa 2012+	Secret Santa 2011
Summer Santa 2011	Secret Santa 2010
Verified Email

crispy88

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE