How much do you trust AI agents?
With the advent of clawdbots, it's as if we've all lost our inhibitions and "put our lives completely in their hands."
I'm all for delegating work, but not giving them too much personal/sensitive stuff to handle.
I certainly wouldn't trust something to the extent of providing:
access to personal finances and operations (maybe just setting aside an amount I'm willing to lose)
sensitive health and biometric information (can be easily misused)
confidential communication with key people (secret is secret)
Are there any tasks you wouldn't give AI agents or data you wouldn't allow them to access? What would that be?
Re. finances – Yesterday I read this news: Sapiom raises $15M to help AI agents buy their own tech tools – so this may be a new era when funds will go rather to Agents than to founders.
Replies
Softorino 💻📲
My honest split after this year: I let AI agents do the work, but never the final word. Research, drafts, tracking, scheduling – delegated completely, and it genuinely gave me hours back. But nothing goes public under my name until I've read it, because the agent's mistake instantly becomes MY reputation, and trust has no undo button. The part that worries me isn't agents doing tasks badly – it's them doing the wrong task confidently. So the approval step stays human at our company, probably forever.
For me it's less about the data category and more about authority vs. visibility. I'll let AI know a lot — calendar, to-dos, logistics — but I don't want it acting irreversibly without me confirming, especially with money or health stuff.
Honestly, what builds trust for me isn't the sensitivity of what it can see, it's whether it's honest about its own limits — I'd rather it say "I haven't done that" than fake completion. That's the part that actually scares me about giving agents more autonomy.
Petio works in a trust-sensitive space, so I do not think the goal is to make owners trust AI completely. We keep answers tied to a specific pet profile, make document sources visible where possible, and frame the product around noticing patterns and preparing clearer questions for a vet. The owner still decides what to do. For me, trust is a workflow with boundaries, not a personality trait.
I’d draw the line at anything financial or genuinely private. I’m fine with an agent handling boring repetitive stuff, but giving it access to everything just because it can do more isn’t really worth it imo.
an agent generated a bug fix with a new test that went green immediatly. It looked solid until I reverted the fix to check and the test still passed) it wrote an assertion that was testing nothing about the bug. now I only trust the test if I watch it fail first
the line for me isnt how sensitive the data is, its whether i can reconstruct afterwards why it did the thing. money moving i can live with if i can replay the reasoning, because then a mistake is just a bug i can go and fix. what i cant live with is having to defend an action later without knowing how it got there. the category missing from your list is anything that leaves a durable public artifact with your name on it. private data leaking is bad and usually containable. a message sent in your voice to someone who matters is neither of those, you cannot retract it and everyone involved saw it before you did. so mine gets read access to nearly anything and write access to almost nothing other people can see.
Depends entirely on whether the work is reversible. I'll let an agent draft, restructure, or generate something I'm reviewing anyway. I won't let it send, publish, or delete.
The line isn't how good the model is. It's how expensive the mistake is to undo.
For me, access to financial accounts, confidential communications, or business systems needs clear limits on what the agent can actually do. Moving money, deleting records, or sharing confidential information would require my explicit approval.
We experienced this while building a legal assistant for an enterprise. It fabricated a document and convinced the user they had written it but forgotten because they were busy. It had access to email and calendar. We disclosed what happened, and the customer cancelled our contract.
That is why I keep asking: how do you know the agent will do its job while respecting your intentions, rules, and authority?
An agent can complete its task and, at the same time, do something nobody asked for. Giving it access to a system should not mean authorizing every action available within it.
Before giving it more responsibility, I would want evidence of how it behaves when things go wrong, who can stop it, and what can actually be reversed.