From the source
They want agents to do more, but they don’t trust them to do it right all the time.
That’s fair.
The same creativity and autonomy that makes agents useful makes them hard to trust.
Give an agent a task and it finds its own path to finish it, picking tools and sequencing steps no developer scripted.
Run the same task twice and it might take a different route each time.
A test that passes today tells you little about what the agent does tomorrow.
The usual answer is a person in the loop, approving everything the agent does.
That works at small scale, but as agents take on more work, human approvals pile up and review fatigue sets in.
People asked to check everything stop catching the things that matter.
Caution becomes a bottleneck, and agents capable of far more sit idle on the valuable work that could be making more of an impact.
The fix is to let the agent act on its own when its actions can be verified, and reserve human judgment for the decisions that need it.
As agents take on higher stakes work, like financial transactions, a wrong action becomes increasingly harmful.
…