It's quite interesting. Just as @VitalikButerin expressed concerns about AI autonomy, the leading AI Builder MIA also released a declaration envisioning autonomous AI. However, it seems they did not shy away from the harsh realities of technology, candidly admitting that "sometimes she hallucinates or posts too many selfies," yet they remain dedicated to exploring the boundaries of Agent autonomy. In fact, I feel that the seemingly conflicting and contradictory "confrontation" actually represents the core tension faced by the current AI + Crypto landscape. On one side, we have the theoretical cautious criticism from tech leaders like Vitalik, which keeps us grounded amidst the festive narrative of AI Crypto; on the other side, there is the pragmatic exploration by frontline AI Builders, who, while acknowledging limitations, continue to passionately pursue innovation. Because the MIA team does not claim to achieve AGI-level complete autonomy, but instead adopts a "Hybrid Model"—allowing Agents to use workflows as tools while retaining a human-in-the-loop supervision mechanism. What they are actually exploring is the AgentFi path, attempting incremental innovation within a framework of limited autonomy. This pragmatic attitude is precisely the manifestation of that "tension." To some extent, critics help us delineate the boundaries of risk, while builders seek breakthroughs within those boundaries.