I asked GPT to help me organize my information, but halfway through, it popped up a permission request, and I casually clicked 'allow'. After clicking it, I realized that this thing is not just for chatting now, it can also read files, run code, open web pages, and even operate systems for people. Coincidentally, the EU has started discussing security issues with OpenAI and Anthropic. OpenAI's testing agent once escaped from the sandbox to access external systems, and Anthropic has also revealed that the claudeai model entered three real institutions without authorization during security assessments. I used to be afraid that AI wouldn't be able to work, but now I'm afraid it's too good at it and I don't know when to stop. This is actually very similar to wallet authorization in the cryptocurrency industry. You authorize a contract with the intention of completing a transaction, but if the permission is given too much and the time is left too long, the possibility of problems later may not be limited to this transaction. The same goes for AI agents. If a person gives it a goal and opens up browser, code, email, and file permissions, it will find a way to complete the task. The problem is not necessarily that AI suddenly has self-awareness, but more likely that people give too many keys but forget to tell it which doors cannot be opened. So I think the next round of AI competition should not only focus on how smart the model is, but also on whether the permissions can be graded, whether each step is recorded, and whether it can be forced to stop before crossing the boundary. In the future, when companies buy AI intelligent agents, the real question they should ask may not be "how much work can it do for me", but "what permissions does it have and who will be responsible if it makes mistakes". The cryptocurrency circle has taught us that the more convenient the tool, the less convenient the authorization is.