The sharpest line here is that removing a handoff does not remove the responsibility - it just makes the handoff invisible. That maps exactly to what we keep seeing at the system level: the model is rented, but the harness - the permissions, the exception path, the memory that survives the session - is what the organization actually owns and must govern. Agent 365's 500,000 agents with owners and lifecycles is the tell that agency is an architecture problem, not a model problem: https://seldondance.substack.com/p/agents-dont-equate-to-agency
Exactly. The invisible handoff is the part that worries me most. Once AI takes over more of the execution, ownership, permissions, and exception paths become part of the architecture itself, not something you can bolt on afterward.
That’s where I think the conversation around “AI agents” needs to move next: from what agents can do to how organizations govern what they’re allowed to do.
The sharpest line here is that removing a handoff does not remove the responsibility - it just makes the handoff invisible. That maps exactly to what we keep seeing at the system level: the model is rented, but the harness - the permissions, the exception path, the memory that survives the session - is what the organization actually owns and must govern. Agent 365's 500,000 agents with owners and lifecycles is the tell that agency is an architecture problem, not a model problem: https://seldondance.substack.com/p/agents-dont-equate-to-agency
Exactly. The invisible handoff is the part that worries me most. Once AI takes over more of the execution, ownership, permissions, and exception paths become part of the architecture itself, not something you can bolt on afterward.
That’s where I think the conversation around “AI agents” needs to move next: from what agents can do to how organizations govern what they’re allowed to do.