Totally fair concern. I wouldn’t expect anyone to give an assistant full, unsupervised access to their machine.
The model here is supervised control by default. Julie can see context and propose actions, but anything state-changing is gated behind explicit approval. You can also run it in read-only or draft-only modes where it helps you think and write, but never clicks or types on your behalf.
Access is permissioned and scoped, not blanket. Screen, keyboard, mouse, filesystem, network, each is a separate capability with clear boundaries and per-app controls. On top of that, actions go through defined protocols rather than free-form behavior, so you know exactly what kinds of operations it’s allowed to perform and under what conditions.
The goal isn’t full access. It’s controlled access with clear protocols, human-in-the-loop execution, and the ability to shut it off instantly if something feels off.
What sort of safety assurances are there? I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where I'd let such an assistant have full access to my machine.
Totally fair concern. I wouldn’t expect anyone to give an assistant full, unsupervised access to their machine.
The model here is supervised control by default. Julie can see context and propose actions, but anything state-changing is gated behind explicit approval. You can also run it in read-only or draft-only modes where it helps you think and write, but never clicks or types on your behalf.
Access is permissioned and scoped, not blanket. Screen, keyboard, mouse, filesystem, network, each is a separate capability with clear boundaries and per-app controls. On top of that, actions go through defined protocols rather than free-form behavior, so you know exactly what kinds of operations it’s allowed to perform and under what conditions.
The goal isn’t full access. It’s controlled access with clear protocols, human-in-the-loop execution, and the ability to shut it off instantly if something feels off.
This is extremely useful, thanks!