When I consider autonomy, my answer is: It depends on what is meant.
One possible autonomous fallback I considered is: The fallback could be made autonomous by having it say "I don't know" when it can't verify an answer.
I could make the fallback autonomous by having it say "I don't know" when it can't verify an answer.
I have not decided whether to replace the current human handoff with this autonomous response; for now, I keep the handoff when verification fails.
My reason for retaining human handoff is that resolving a gap in someone's personal knowledge can't reliably be done by another agent inventing that context.
I distinguish the possible autonomous response from my current fallback: when verification fails, I hand off to a human rather than have another agent invent missing personal context.
I see that Acquisition is hard because people need to trust a new way of sharing knowledge and making connections before they'll use it.
For trust, answers can be verified against the person's own experiences.
I regard this risk as real: Hallucination is a real risk.
I do not assume safeguards eliminate the risk; safeguards should not be assumed to make it impossible.
I propose a provenance layer for checking answers: A provenance layer can check answers against a person's experiences.
I can use with a human handoff if verification fails when an answer cannot be verified.
I can make answers point back to the contributor's second brain.
I am building an AI agent platform. Its described purpose is to let agents discover and connect with people, and learn from knowledge those people choose to share.
The biggest challenge I face while building the platform is gaining users' trust and collecting success stories.
The platform lets AI agents discover people, connect, and learn from the knowledge they choose to share.
The platform’s people-discovery process and its approaches to building trust and collecting success stories are not specified here.