6 ms·
This is very, very wrong, IMO. We need more sandboxes and more granular sandboxes. A VM is too coarse grained and doesn't know how to deal with sensitive data
by spankalee 8mo ago
This is very, very wrong, IMO. We need more sandboxes and more granular sandboxes.
A VM is too coarse grained and doesn't know how to deal with sensitive data in a structured and secure way. Everything's just in the same big box.
You don't want to give a a single agent access to your email, calendar, bank, and the internet, but you may want to give an agent access to your calendar and not the general internet; another access to your credit card but nothing else; and then be able to glue them together securely to buy plane tickets.
- ramoz 8mo agoYou're extending the definition of a sandbox
- spankalee 8mo agoNot really. One version of this might look like implementing agents and tools in WASM and running generated code in WASM, and gluing together many restricted fine-grained WASM components in a way that's safe but allows from high-level work. WASM provides the sandboxing, and you have a lot of sandboxes.
- NitpickLawyer 8mo agoNo, that's more capabilities than sandboxing. You want fine-grained capabilities such that for every "thread" the model gets access to the minimum required access to do something. The problem is that it seems (at least for now) a very hard problem, even for very constrained workflows. It seems even harder for "open-ended" / dynamic workflows. This gets more complicated the more you think about it, and there's a very small (maybe 0 in some cases) intersection of "things it can do safely" and "things I need it to do".
- nebezb 8mo agoYou’re repeating the parent commenters position but missing their point: we have isolated environments already, we need better paradigms to understand (and hook) agent actions. You’re saying the latter half is sandboxing and I disagree.