Defining AI-Native Systems: Autonomy as Revision Authority

AI has begun to write systems code: agents now synthesize, verify, and deploy system components. Despite this shift, "AI-native" remains a marketing term with no precise technical definition. This paper gives it one. We define AI-nativeness along a single axis---authority over the system's own decisions rather than by the capability of the underlying AI models. Building on a decision-level model of a system, we distinguish occupancy (who executes a decision) from revision authority (who may change it), organize revision authority into a ladder---self-tuning, self-rewriting, self-architecting and define a system as AI-native when an AI autonomously rewrites the system's own implementations. The definition further requires an escalation detector, a verification procedure, and a verified fallback, while leaving purpose and correctness human-owned.

Computing on the Fly: Navigating a Vision for the Future of Drone Computing

The report envisions a decade in which drones move goods, medical supplies, and information at a scale comparable to national infrastructure investments like highways and the electric grid. Potential applications include natural disaster detection drones that spot wildfire sources within minutes, medical supply chains that bypass ground congestion to reach rural hospitals, and nationwide fleets that continuously inspect bridges and power lines. Realizing this future, however, requires closing what report authors call a "capability gap," where hardware and aspirations are outpacing the software and systems needed to operate safely at scale. The report identifies twelve technical challenges that must be addressed to realize the transformative potential of drone technology: Scaling to millions of drones; AI intelligence and assurance; Edge-cloud continuum and real-time coordination; AI autonomy and agentic systems; Data, training, and validation infrastructure; Critical infrastructure protection; Building reliable fleets from non-deterministic agents; Trust, security, and distributed authentication; Next-generation drone networks; Human-AI partnership and scalable insight; Standards, certification, and regulation; and Workforce development and education. These twelve challenges and proposed approaches to them form the basis of the report, laying out a multifaceted path forward for the evolution of done technology.

Critique of Agent Model

What is an agent? What constitutes agency? With the rise of Large Language Model (LLM) systems marketed as ``coding agents'', ``AI co-scientists'', and other ``agentic" tools that promise to drive up productivity, and at the same time, ``existential" concerns such as AI escaping human control with destructive power under a speculative ``machine agency" against humans, it has become essential to clarify where automation ends and agency begins, both for building capable systems and for understanding whether and what to fear. Drawing on Descartes' grounding of agency in independent thought, and on portrayals of autonomous beings in science fiction, we survey the current landscape of AI agents, and analyze agent architectures along five dimensions: goal, identity, decision-making, self-regulation, and learning. Specifically, we argue that genuine agency requires these structures to be \emph{internalized within the system itself} rather than assembled through external scaffolding. This distinction between \emph{agentic} systems, whose competence resides in engineered workflows, and \emph{agentive} systems, whose capabilities (including social interaction) arise endogenously, defines the boundary between systems designed for prescribed tasks, and those capable of operating in the open world with true autonomy. Building on this analysis, we propose the Goal-Identity-Configurator (GIC) architecture for a general-purpose agent model, combining hierarchical goal decomposition, identity evolution, simulative reasoning grounded in a separately trained world model, learned self-regulation, and self-directed learning from both real and simulated experience. Furthermore, we share insight on the auditability, controllability, and safety of agentive systems that possess greater autonomy and ``agency", but remain under human oversight.

How AI Agents Reshape Knowledge Work: Autonomy, Efficiency, and Scope

Frontier AI systems are bridging the gap between intelligence and utility by shifting from conversational assistants to autonomous agents that execute tasks end to end. Using production data from Perplexity's Search and Computer products, we study this transition by examining how AI agents accelerate and reshape knowledge work. Three key empirical findings emerge. First, using sessions with near-identical initial query pairs as natural experiments for the same underlying task attempted with both products, Computer performs 26 minutes of autonomous work per user session, versus 33 seconds for Search. Computer automates task decomposition and execution that Search users might otherwise manually orchestrate and implement. As a result, Computer shifts follow-up query distribution toward higher-order work such as verification and extension. Autonomy also increases execution quality, with per-query dissatisfaction rates 55% lower on Computer than on Search. Second, due to its autonomy advantage, Computer reduces completion time from 269 to 36 minutes on matched tasks, lowering estimated time and cost by 87% and 94%, respectively, compared to humans equipped with Search alone. Third, Computer changes the scope of work that users attempt: Computer queries more often cross occupational boundaries, require higher-order cognition, draw on broader expertise, take the form of composite tasks that bundle interdependent subtasks into a single query, and unlock work activities that are essentially absent from Search usage among the same users. Together, the evidence indicates that AI agents accelerate workflows, enhance output quality, reduce costs, and expand the breadth and depth of automated work.