We are rapidly approaching a point where AI agents (running local LLMs like Ollama) are moving from generating text to executing physical, financial, and network state changes. Everyone is trying to solve "AI safety" with software prompts or cloud-based API wrappers. But software guardrails on a probabilistic model feel fundamentally flawed when dealing with real-world actuation.
I’m building an architecture that forces probabilistic AI to pass through a deterministic, air-gapped hardware bottleneck before it can execute anything. I call it the State-Locked Protocol (SLP).
Instead of a single board doing everything, the system is split:
The Brain (Probabilistic): An Nvidia RTX 6000 Ada / Jetson AGX Thor running the LLMs and generating "aspirations" (intents).
The Brake (Deterministic): A completely separate, low-power MCU (currently prototyping "SLP-Zero" using an ESP32-S3 LilyGo T-Dongle).
The Execution Flow:
The AI decides it wants to execute a skill (uploaded manually by a human, not downloaded straight into the node via web).
Before the host can route the command to the actuators or network, the intent is translated via a custom deterministic compiler (Resin DSL).
The command payload is sent via SPI to the ESP32-S3. The host thread is entirely suspended.
The ESP32 holds the payload in what we call the "Amber Zone" (an infinite loop displaying the intent on a local screen).
It requires a physical human GPIO interrupt (a button press) on the MCU to break the loop.
The MCU generates a cryptographic hash of the state, passes the "GO" signal back to the host, and execution proceeds.
I've been writing the firmware for the ESP32 prototype using Antigravity IDE and have an architectural dossier mapping out the "12 Pillars" of this mechanical safety logic.
My questions for the HN community:
Hardware Bypassing: If the host OS (Linux) is completely compromised, what is the most mathematically secure way to ensure the output pins (e.g., to a robotic arm) remain physically severed unless the ESP32 actively holds an ENABLE pin high?
IPC Latency: For the host-to-MCU handshake, is SPI with DMA the absolute best route for sub-10ms latency without starving the host's sensor-fusion pipelines?
Philosophical: Are any of you working on physical/mechanical brakes for local AI, or is the industry totally blind to the hardware layer of agentic safety?
I'd love to hear critiques on this architecture or trade notes with anyone thinking about sovereign hardware.
We are rapidly approaching a point where AI agents (running local LLMs like Ollama) are moving from generating text to executing physical, financial, and network state changes. Everyone is trying to solve "AI safety" with software prompts or cloud-based API wrappers. But software guardrails on a probabilistic model feel fundamentally flawed when dealing with real-world actuation.
I’m building an architecture that forces probabilistic AI to pass through a deterministic, air-gapped hardware bottleneck before it can execute anything. I call it the State-Locked Protocol (SLP).
Instead of a single board doing everything, the system is split:
The Brain (Probabilistic): An Nvidia RTX 6000 Ada / Jetson AGX Thor running the LLMs and generating "aspirations" (intents).
The Brake (Deterministic): A completely separate, low-power MCU (currently prototyping "SLP-Zero" using an ESP32-S3 LilyGo T-Dongle).
The Execution Flow:
The AI decides it wants to execute a skill (uploaded manually by a human, not downloaded straight into the node via web).
Before the host can route the command to the actuators or network, the intent is translated via a custom deterministic compiler (Resin DSL).
The command payload is sent via SPI to the ESP32-S3. The host thread is entirely suspended.
The ESP32 holds the payload in what we call the "Amber Zone" (an infinite loop displaying the intent on a local screen).
It requires a physical human GPIO interrupt (a button press) on the MCU to break the loop.
The MCU generates a cryptographic hash of the state, passes the "GO" signal back to the host, and execution proceeds.
I've been writing the firmware for the ESP32 prototype using Antigravity IDE and have an architectural dossier mapping out the "12 Pillars" of this mechanical safety logic.
My questions for the HN community:
Hardware Bypassing: If the host OS (Linux) is completely compromised, what is the most mathematically secure way to ensure the output pins (e.g., to a robotic arm) remain physically severed unless the ESP32 actively holds an ENABLE pin high?
IPC Latency: For the host-to-MCU handshake, is SPI with DMA the absolute best route for sub-10ms latency without starving the host's sensor-fusion pipelines?
Philosophical: Are any of you working on physical/mechanical brakes for local AI, or is the industry totally blind to the hardware layer of agentic safety?
I'd love to hear critiques on this architecture or trade notes with anyone thinking about sovereign hardware.