AI agents can now create their own bank accounts(clawbot.cash) |
AI agents can now create their own bank accounts(clawbot.cash) |
Translation, no, AI agents can not create their own bank accounts, but someone's spamming Hacker News to see if there's interest in creating a company to allow that.
With modern banking regulations and security procedures. I'm not even sure how that would be possible. Every bank account I've opened requires me to give them my photo ID and social security number, which AI agents don't have.
Meaning, YOU would have to give them YOUR ID to vouch for your agent, so this just means a human would be opening a bank account...which isn't new.
We're a real company :) (with health insurance!)
> With modern banking regulations and security procedures. I'm not even sure how that would be possible. Every bank account I've opened requires me to give them my photo ID and social security number, which AI agents don't have.
It's literally my job to know how it's possible, and to offer that up as a service with generous fees! Appreciate the input tho.
You are correct, KYC rules must be followed, and once you're off the waitlist (which we threw up last minute to make sure this system wasn't abused by an influx of demand) you'll be able to go through typical banking steps you're familiar with. We use persona as our KYC vendor and are highly sensitive about PII exposure.
> human would be opening a bank account...which isn't new.
An agent could open this bank account if you prefer to give it access to your social, passport, etc -- entirely up to the individual's risk profile.
What is new is a whole interface designed for an ai agent with guard rails to ensure it doesn't get itself in trouble by violating obscure BSA laws. Magnolia's job has always been to handle the compliance.
Trust (funding)->LLC (limited liability for compute operations, authority to orchestrate in meat space)->Trust
(a Montana LLC comes to mind, as beneficiaries can be anonymous, but Wyoming has superior charging order protections)
> 0% Approval rate
> 0/7 API uptime
Sometimes I love stupid behaviour that appears when you have JavaScript disabled.
But why do I do it by default? It makes the web better. Things load faster, memory usage reduces, annoyances don’t load… most of what you miss out on is actually better gone. Privacy and tracking stuff is actually more a convenient benefit than the main purpose, to me.
Similar deal with disabling font selection (Firefox: Settings → Fonts → Advanced… → untick Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above). Rarely it actually breaks things (three times in six years, all last year), and that misbegotten nonsense which is Material Icons makes occasional things ugly if you also block web fonts altogether e.g. in uBlock Origin (by default, Firefox whitelists some icon fonts for this reason—see pref browser.display.use_document_fonts.icon_font_allowlist), but using your own chosen fonts only really does make things better.
Like sibling commenter, I use uMatrix to block this. Also I don’t have it enabled in Private Browsing windows, so they get JS, which I find a handy way of managing it.
I wouldn't recommend completely disabling it though. Use something like uMatrix to selectively filter things.
I just assumed tech enthusiasts who'd use this would be a more enlightened species
> Fill out your info and upload an ID.
Wait. Parrots have ID now?
> Get Verified
> Instant identity verification. Most approvals happen in seconds.
How does anyone verify a parrot?
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/ba...
This is all going to come crashing down somehow.
You or a business with legal owners can have a bank account, and you can give access to that account to an agent, but real banks work in the real world, and "know your customer" regulations need a real person somewhere in the chain.
But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
Liability always follows the human as has been the case with all tools, motor vehicles, and pets.
Putting a brick on the gas pedal is obviously negligent. Whereas it is not so obvious that running a random script from github that spins up an agent with access to your home folder could lead to real world financial crimes.
Truly a strange world we're headed for.
Maybe, but there are still ways to send a fingerprint to a third party, even from the client side. For example you could inject a JA3/JA4/TLS fingerprint into URL paths for resources in the HTML, such as stylesheets or images.
disagree, and the courts will likely take this position as well. ignorance has never been a defensible strategy to avoid liability.
pick up a detonator, it's up to you to understand where the bombs are positions what's in the blast range.
Anyway that's clearly not true in the general case. For example, if you didn't realize that the button was a detonator to begin with.
Reframed so maybe you'd better understand the relationship between these concepts. This isn't cutting edge precedent!
And I don't believe your claim of liability generalizes. If someone else set up the detonator and then I pushed the button without realizing what it was I don't believe I'd be liable.
The party that set it up might be, but it gets really complicated and messy because it depends on the specific circumstances of all involved parties.
If A sets it up in a manner believed to be safe, B moves something in good faith which unintentionally makes things unsafe, and then C comes along and triggers it without realizing, you might well end up with a situation where no one is considered liable.