During that process, I came across PAIO, and the contrast was interesting—especially the one-click integration and the BYOK architecture. Having privacy and credential control baked in from the start felt like a more practical approach for everyday users, not just engineers willing to maintain their own security stack.
It really highlights the broader point here: AI agents are powerful, but the foundations (security, trust, and architecture) matter just as much as the “new toys.”
The core problem the video highlights is real: OpenClaw gives an AI agent shell access, messaging access, and browser access. The default setup has none of the security guardrails you'd want. Most users either skip security entirely or make mistakes that leave them exposed.
After setting it up securely for myself and a few friends, I started automating the whole process — automated provisioning on Hetzner with Docker sandbox, UFW, fail2ban, SSH key auth pre-configured. Turned it into a small managed hosting service (runclaw.ai) because I kept seeing the same setup struggles everywhere.
The broader point stands though: the security model for AI agents with system access is fundamentally unsolved. Sandboxing helps. Proper infrastructure helps. But prompt injection and trust boundaries are architectural problems that no amount of hosting can fix.
dfajgljsldkjag•1w ago
mrkeen•1w ago
Maybe the path was:
It felt like we made it somewhere into the 'built it fast' phase before getting yanked onto the next feature.These days it feels more like:
I would love the Overton window to somehow shift back to topics like "how do we know the code is correct and addresses the right problem?" over "how many tickets or LOC did your agent do for you today?". I don't know how we get back.