Not looking forward to a dehumanized internet where that’s mainstream… agents are tools to support humans, here you’re helping them impersonating humans. That’s feels pretty pretty terrible to be honest
> The internet was made for humans exclusively, designed to keep machines out by default.
I don’t buy that at all. APIs exist to enable “machines” to interact with services
I like it. I am building something very agent-use focused (https://sdocs.dev) and I’ve been thinking of introducing a /agent-evaluation page, which an agent can curl to then discuss with their user if SmallDocs is right for them. I really like the agent action to email flow. I’m introducing user accounts + subscriptions soon and think I’ll use that.
And now we see the beginning of how even local LLMs will be turned against their users -- by persuading agents to advertise to them.
I don't think that's what you're intending here, but it's the next logical step. Agents are on the Internet, and they represent an opportunity to reach their humans.
I would imagine that many websites will block this domain, but that’s also ok because there’s nothing wrong with an owner deciding their site is for humans only. My hope is that you do not facilitate their circumvention of that policy.
It's interesting, A2A communication has begun but human trust isn't there. I think the biggest tell tale sign will be the acceptance of fully agentic workflows with no human intervention. Until then, restricted-until-claimed seems like the only viable method to ensure trust of all users.
> Agents can now get an email inbox by themselves. (This also means a lot of email nobody wants to read gets processed by AI instead of your inbox being cluttered with spam and slop)
Can you explain this? I would think it means the exact opposite.
Not looking forward to a dehumanized internet where that’s mainstream… agents are tools to support humans, here you’re helping them impersonating humans. That’s feels pretty pretty terrible to be honest
> The internet was made for humans exclusively, designed to keep machines out by default.
I don’t buy that at all. APIs exist to enable “machines” to interact with services
In principle this tool allows the owner of a website to block this domain entirely. Although I’m not sure the incentives are really aligned.
I like it. I am building something very agent-use focused (https://sdocs.dev) and I’ve been thinking of introducing a /agent-evaluation page, which an agent can curl to then discuss with their user if SmallDocs is right for them. I really like the agent action to email flow. I’m introducing user accounts + subscriptions soon and think I’ll use that.
And now we see the beginning of how even local LLMs will be turned against their users -- by persuading agents to advertise to them.
I don't think that's what you're intending here, but it's the next logical step. Agents are on the Internet, and they represent an opportunity to reach their humans.
I would imagine that many websites will block this domain, but that’s also ok because there’s nothing wrong with an owner deciding their site is for humans only. My hope is that you do not facilitate their circumvention of that policy.
It's interesting, A2A communication has begun but human trust isn't there. I think the biggest tell tale sign will be the acceptance of fully agentic workflows with no human intervention. Until then, restricted-until-claimed seems like the only viable method to ensure trust of all users.
Congrats on the launch!
> Agents can now get an email inbox by themselves. (This also means a lot of email nobody wants to read gets processed by AI instead of your inbox being cluttered with spam and slop)
Can you explain this? I would think it means the exact opposite.
It needs to be end-to-end encrypted.
How do you do that if you only control one end?
A smtp is all what an agent needs to send email.
From now we just need a prompt and our agent will have an email account ready to use?