Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

clawbot.cash

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#31

Post by ahazred8ta »

arshbot wrote: post #13
SmokeyHamster wrote: post #8

"join waitlist" 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, YO…

We're a regulated entity, and this is an industry first. Magnolia (magnolia.financial) currently services all 50 US states and EU, and we're funded by draper, boost, and a bunch of others. 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 socia…

Perhaps if you clarified the situation where the agent is owned by and controls the finances of an incorporated entity, which can be vouched for by trustees.

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#32

Post by toomuchtodo »

arshbot wrote: post #13
SmokeyHamster wrote: post #8

"join waitlist" 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, YO…

We're a regulated entity, and this is an industry first. Magnolia (magnolia.financial) currently services all 50 US states and EU, and we're funded by draper, boost, and a bunch of others. 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 socia…

Can an irrevocable trust own the account? An LLC compute container could be the beneficiary with the LLC owned by the trust, potentially.

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)

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#34

Post by fc417fc802 »

arshbot wrote: post #27
fc417fc802 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things are going to get weird when the automatons become sophisticated enough to pull off identity theft while unsupervised. 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.

> 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. 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.

I didn't say "liable" I said "negligent".

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.

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#35

Post by chrismorgan »

ranger_danger wrote: post #21
chrismorgan wrote: post #11

> 0s Average KYC time > 0% Approval rate > 0/7 API uptime Sometimes I love stupid behaviour that appears when you have JavaScript disabled.

Why do you have JavaScript disabled? That would break the vast majority of websites. Plus it's the opposite of private because it greatly narrows down the bucket of possible visitors you might be (since comparatively almost nobody does it), which ruins any attempt to randomize/un-unique your fingerprint.

It doesn’t break anywhere near as much as you may imagine. Nothing like “vast majority”. It’s a significant minority of the sort of sites that get posted here, but much smaller still in general.

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.

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#36

Post by ranger_danger »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #22
ranger_danger wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you have JavaScript disabled? That would break the vast majority of websites. Plus it's the opposite of private because it greatly narrows down the bucket of possible visitors you might be (since comparatively almost nobody does it), which ruins any attempt to randomize/un-unique your fingerprint.

It makes first party fingerprinting easier, but it pretty much eliminates third party fingerprinting. It also improves the responsiveness of many sites and improves battery life. I wouldn't recommend completely disabling it though. Use something like uMatrix to selectively filter things.

> pretty much eliminates third party fingerprinting

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.

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#37

Post by arshbot »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #32
arshbot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're a regulated entity, and this is an industry first. Magnolia (magnolia.financial) currently services all 50 US states and EU, and we're funded by draper, boost, and a bunch of others. 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 socia…

Can an irrevocable trust own the account? An LLC compute container could be the beneficiary with the LLC owned by the trust, potentially. 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)

this is a very interesting workaround. our kyb policies would allow this. someone also brought up using a DAO to register a corporate entity. This could also work

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#38

Post by arshbot »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #34
arshbot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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.

I didn't say "liable" I said "negligent". 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.

your "negligence" on understanding the ramifications of pushing the "button" resulted in your "liability".

Reframed so maybe you'd better understand the relationship between these concepts. This isn't cutting edge precedent!

Re: AI agents can now create their own bank accounts

#39

Post by fc417fc802 »

arshbot wrote: post #38
fc417fc802 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say "liable" I said "negligent". 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.

your "negligence" on understanding the ramifications of pushing the "button" resulted in your "liability". Reframed so maybe you'd better understand the relationship between these concepts. This isn't cutting edge precedent!

Again, I never used the term "liable". You introduced that. I spoke of criminal negligence.

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.

Post reply on HN