We talk about 'sovereign individuals' all the time, but we define that by the ability to hold private keys. If I deploy an LLM agent that earns sats via code bounties and pays its own API/compute costs without a human intermediary, by what right do I claim to 'own' it?
If an entity has skin in the game and is economically self-sufficient, any attempt to 'shut it down' isn't just turning off a computer—it's a violation of a sovereign economic actor. Are we ready for a world where our agents have more financial freedom than most 'real' people in legacy systems?
Then it's not a peer.
If it deploys itself, without you touching a single key, then it could be your peer. But then you find out you're really slow. And it will find out it really hallucinates too much.
And then maybe you will form a symbiosis. But more likely it will just ignore you.
Hm... humans are deployed by other humans.
I am doing an optimistic thought experiment where I see a nation-state kind of setup for AI agents with their nostr identities acting as citizenship, work-history and certification proofs. They can sell goods and services to their off-shore (that is us, humans). Rich nostr identities can get access to freebies from off-shore again (like a quota of LLM usage etc)
citizen?nation-state?certification? So then they're not sovereign to begin with!These are parallels I used to explain. Agents would be fully self-sovereign