Really enjoyed both papers.
I appreciate widening the aperture from individual agents toward ecosystems of agents; delegation protocols, reputation systems, virtual agent economies, and ecosystem resilience, where we’re starting to touch questions of governance, institutional design, and coordination more broadly got me wondering about the longer developmental trajectory of agent ecosystems.
Many of the architectures described here (control, monitoring, access management, reputation systems, etc.) strike me as constructive, necessary, and directionally correct for the current moment. At the same time, I find myself wondering how you think about the distinction between scaffolding and structure.
History seems full of examples of ontological lock-in, where a framework was successful enough that people gradually started treating it as the whole picture.
The sense I get from these papers is that GDM doesn’t feel trapped in a purely control-oriented worldview, and the papers seem to hint at a larger conversation that is less purely security oriented and more, “What kinds of institutions, norms, protocols, and environments allow increasingly capable agents to become trustworthy participants in larger coordination structures?”
I’m curious how you think about where these papers sit within that longer arc.
Where in the developmental trajectory of agent ecosystems are these control/security architectures most apt?
What would it mean for them to be outgrown, transformed, or nested inside more mature coordination structures?
Where are the biggest risks of ontological lock-in?
How can the field better communicate that we are not just designing controls for agents, but participating in the birth of a new kind of socio-technical ecology?
Etc.
These papers are in service of building the equivalent of an immune system, which is absolutely necessary, but immune systems exist in service of organisms. So I’m left wondering: What is the organism/ecosystem we are trying to grow?
