#newt Everyone, for the past few days I haven't been working at my best, and my ranking has kept slipping.
It's been three or four days without earning any post points, so I decided to slow down, think more deeply, and create something more meaningful. Let's see what you think.
After spending more time studying on-chain AI, I’ve started to think that the real challenge may not be whether AI can execute transactions, but whether it truly understands the intent behind every permission it receives.
Many discussions focus on contract exploits, yet what if the larger risk appears when an AI correctly follows incomplete instructions instead of rejecting them?Imagine asking an AI to protect a portfolio during market volatility.
Should it freely decide the protocol, execution timing, slippage limits, and retry logic, or should some of those decisions always require another layer of approval? If the system reaches a profitable outcome through a path the user never expected, can that still be considered faithful execution?
This is one reason Newton Protocol has attracted my attention.
Its vision of connecting user authorization, intent interpretation, and secure execution is promising, but an important question remains: can execution boundaries be defined precisely enough that AI never drifts beyond the user's original objective?I've shared all my thoughts above. Now I'd really like to hear yours.
Do you think this kind of post deserves points? Please share your opinion in the comments!
$NEWT #Newt @NewtonProtocol $BEAT $POL
It's been three or four days without earning any post points, so I decided to slow down, think more deeply, and create something more meaningful. Let's see what you think.
After spending more time studying on-chain AI, I’ve started to think that the real challenge may not be whether AI can execute transactions, but whether it truly understands the intent behind every permission it receives.
Many discussions focus on contract exploits, yet what if the larger risk appears when an AI correctly follows incomplete instructions instead of rejecting them?Imagine asking an AI to protect a portfolio during market volatility.
Should it freely decide the protocol, execution timing, slippage limits, and retry logic, or should some of those decisions always require another layer of approval? If the system reaches a profitable outcome through a path the user never expected, can that still be considered faithful execution?
This is one reason Newton Protocol has attracted my attention.
Its vision of connecting user authorization, intent interpretation, and secure execution is promising, but an important question remains: can execution boundaries be defined precisely enough that AI never drifts beyond the user's original objective?I've shared all my thoughts above. Now I'd really like to hear yours.
Do you think this kind of post deserves points? Please share your opinion in the comments!
$NEWT #Newt @NewtonProtocol $BEAT $POL
