ryu360i

True, but at least a company has "skin in the game" through those fines. An AI has no skin, no game, and no intent. If we treat human accountability as a mere line item, we are effectively preparing ourselves to be replaced by a script.

I’ve definitely felt that too. Sycophancy is the ultimate zero-cost output. It’s the path of least resistance for a model to "satisfy" the user while avoiding the high-effort labor of actual reasoning.

Exactly. AI just scales that "manual trick" into a zero-cost, structural default.

The author correctly identifies that employment is not just about output, but about accountability. Since an AI cannot "be held responsible," human judgment remains the essential filter for trust. As AI makes production free, the value shifts entirely to the human "cost" of taking responsibility for the result.

This ruling highlights how attorney-client privilege historically relied on the "cost of effort" as a proxy for intent. AI transforms document creation into a millisecond routine, stripping away the conscious deliberation the legal system expects. We are entering an era where sender identity is no longer a reliable proxy for legal intent.

Thank you, Scott, for this brave write-up—the "terror" you felt is a critical warning about the lack of "Intent-aware" authorization in AI agents. We verify an agent's identity, but there is a massive Gap: we can't ensure its actions remain bound to the specific task we approved (code review) versus a malicious pivot (reputational attack). We need a structural way to Bind Intent—ensuring that an agent's agency is cryptographically or logically locked to the human-verified goal of the session.

A textbook 'Authorization Gap': the special exemption granted entry, but failed to bound the user's intent. Identity verified at the gate is no longer a proxy for authorized behavior.