Ambient Authority Won Because It Was Convenient

Capability systems lost on cost, not merit. Agents change the economics of authorization enough to make them practical again. I have spent most of my career working on systems built on ambient authority, where software gets to do things because of who it is or where it runs, rather than because the task at hand requires that access. We knew there was another way. The alternative had been described in the 1960s and 1970s, and some of it had even shipped. We built on ambient authority anyway, and for a long time that was a reasonable choice. In my last post, Agents Should Earn Authority, Not Inherit It, I argued that capability systems lost to convenience, not because the underlying ideas were wrong. I moved past that point quickly, but it deserves more attention. If convenience is why capabilities lost, the real question is whether the tradeoffs that made ambient authority attractive still hold. I don't think they do. Most writing on agent security asks for better guardrails or tighter…

Commenting on Bubbles has been removed. Why? If you want to talk about this post, write to the author, use the comments on their blog if it has them, or reply with a "RE:" post on your own blog. Suggestions? feedback@bubbles.town