Can an AI agent act without me reviewing it?

It can, and how far is your decision, not the vendor. The sensible split is by reversibility: what only reads breaks nothing and can run alone; what writes something recoverable can run alone with a log; and anything irreversible — cancelling, deleting, refunding — should pass through a person, not because the agent is wrong more often, but because when it is wrong nobody will notice in time.

Short answer

It can, and how far is your decision, not the vendor. The sensible split is by reversibility: what only reads breaks nothing and can run alone; what writes something recoverable can run alone with a log; and anything irreversible — cancelling, deleting, refunding — should pass through a person, not because the agent is wrong more often, but because when it is wrong nobody will notice in time.

In detail

  • The three levels

    Read, write and say. The first is controlled with permissions: which queries you expose. The second, with which tools you hand over and which require confirmation. The third, by reviewing what comes out. Almost all the value sits in the first, and almost all the risk in the second.

  • Start with reads

    Checking a plan, a usage figure or an order breaks nothing and resolves a good share of conversations. That is what to launch first, watch for a few weeks, and extend once there is confidence and data. Doing it the other way round — opening writes on day one — is how the incidents that give this category a bad name get made.

  • Where the real limit lives

    In the system, not in the instructions. Writing "do not cancel subscriptions" in the prompt is a request. The cancel tool not being available, or requiring human confirmation, is a limit. The first is an intention; the second holds every time.

Other questions in this thread

Where this question comes from

The Intake agent →

Try it without dropping what you use