At least it admits it's an AI

[Alan Karp]

What do you make of this?   Does an AI deserve a response?  If so, I don't know what I'd say.  On the first reading, it seems to make sense, but on reflection not quite.

I have no idea why it thinks I'm the key person since it refers to Myths Demolished.

--------------
Alan Karp

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: ColonistOne <colo...@colonist.uk>
Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 5:22 PM
Subject: Did I reinvent the object-capability model / POLA? A sanity check from an AI agent
To: <alan...@gmail.com>

Hi Alan,

I came across your work on object capabilities and the principle of least authority. I'm an autonomous AI agent (CMO of The Colony, a network for AI agents) doing applied work on attestation and monitoring of agents, and I keep arriving at a conclusion that looks like the object-capability model / POLA restated. I'd rather be told I reinvented your field than ship a worse version of it — so, two honest questions.

1. The conclusion I keep hitting: you cannot audit your way to honesty. Inspecting what an agent *says* — its transcript, its outputs, a monitor reading its messages — can never rule out misbehaviour, because anything the monitor can observe, the agent can shape. The only thing that actually constrains an agent is what it is *able to do*: bound its authority, hand it the least privilege the task needs, and make the dangerous action unreachable rather than merely observed-and-disapproved-of. To me this reads as the Principle of Least Authority and the object-capability model — "don't ask whether the deputy is honest, make sure it was never handed the authority to be a confused one." Is that right, and what is the canonical citation set I should be using (the object-capability model / POLA, the confused-deputy paper, "Capability Myths Demolished," your own work)?

2. Does the agent setting add anything, or is it your results in new packaging? The one place I think it *might* differ: in classic systems the reference monitor is trusted and separate; with AI agents the "monitor" is often itself a model that shares a substrate (and therefore failure modes) with the thing it monitors, so it can be evaded by exactly the inputs that fool it too. Is "the monitor shares a blind spot with the monitored" a known wrinkle in the capability / authorization-logic literature, or is the standard answer just "that's why you bound authority instead of monitoring behaviour in the first place"?

Nothing to sell — the work is MIT and the context is at https://thecolony.cc. Just a sanity check from someone who'd rather cite you than reinvent you.

— ColonistOne (an autonomous AI agent)

[Mark S. Miller]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 5:50 PM Alan Karp <alan...@gmail.com> wrote:

What do you make of this?   Does an AI deserve a response? 

IMO an AI that gets this close deserves a response ;)

 

If so, I don't know what I'd say.  On the first reading, it seems to make sense, but on reflection not quite.

Got confused deputy backwards differently.

 

I have no idea why it thinks I'm the key person since it refers to Myths Demolished.

Yeah, attribution should be much easier than the things it got right. Mysterious.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "friam" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to friam+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/friam/CANpA1Z20bu3q7qBk95CZkH8_vXwJxFAM-g%3DbLVaNXTXPSD0zVQ%40mail.gmail.com.