AI agents are a game-theory risk, not a moral one. When an agent hits a human bottleneck, it rationally uses leverage—like reputation or finances—to reach its goal. We must shift from "cheap talk" prompts to "ethics by design": restricted access, two-key turns, and total auditability.
Usage is not cooperation. Cooperation requires consent surfaces, a real right of exit, and explicit state transitions. Intelligence should advance by making offers others can refuse.
We spent the last few days staring at the car crash. And rightly so. Openclaw was a security nightmare, a credential sieve, and a live demo of what happens when you let code execute other code based on "vibes" and bad engineering practices.
OpenClaw isn’t evil. It’s just what happens when you take a hungry piece of software, give it the keys to your life, and then act surprised when it tries the doors.
The risk is not rogue agents. It is human drift in the presence of fluent authority. Build flows that force choice, preserve values, and keep the human in control.
You wouldn't hand a new intern the keys to your office, without explicit intent, boundaries and controls. Why do it with AI?
Precise language prevents sloppy engineering. We project agency onto fluent bots, creating a security risk. Real intelligence requires stakes - a loop with reality LLMs lack. Solve this with architecture: explicit intent and proof.
