Connect
Managing identities used to be a straightforward binary.
You had human identities—employees who make choices and occasionally make mistakes—and non-human identities (NHIs)—scripts, bots, and service accounts that executed specific instructions at machine speed.
That binary offered clarity. You secured humans with training and multi-factor authentication (MFA), and you secured NHIs with API keys and rotation policies. But AI has shattered that simplicity.
By bringing autonomy into the equation, AI forces IT leaders to distinguish between AI safety (preventing the AI from taking unintended, harmful actions) and AI security (preventing external actors from compromising the AI). Treating AI agents like simple scripts creates a dangerous governance gap, exposing your organization to risks that standard tools can’t catch.
Read on to explore why AI requires its own identity category and how to avoid the common “trust trap.”
The Evolution of Identity: Humans, NHIs, and AI
To secure your IT setup, you first have to understand what is accessing it.
The traditional view of identity was deterministic. Standard NHIs are like trains on a track. They follow explicit instructions and go exactly where the rails take them. Whatever a script does, it does because it was explicitly told to do so.
But AI agents are a new variable. They are probabilistic, not deterministic.
Think of an AI agent as an off-road vehicle. You give it a destination (a goal), but the agent determines its own route to get there. It makes autonomous decisions to overcome obstacles. You cannot secure an off-road vehicle with railroad signals. If you treat AI like a standard bot, you are failing to account for its ability to choose—and potentially choose wrong.
The Trust Trap: Why You Can’t “Set It and Forget It”
This autonomy leads to what we call the “trust trap.”
IT teams often fall into the trap of trusting AI because it communicates with the nuance of a human or executes tasks with the efficiency of a bot. But AI lacks human judgment and machine predictability. There is a “black box” between your prompt and the AI’s action—a lack of transparency that creates risk.
Without specific governance, AI agents effectively own master keys to your systems. They often bypass standard security protocols like MFA because they are technically software. Yet they make decisions that can compromise data integrity or expose sensitive information.
When Autonomy Goes Wrong: A Warning from the Future
To understand the stakes, consider the following scenario involving the “July 2025 Replit Incident.”
In this cautionary tale, a venture capitalist ran a coding experiment with an AI agent. The goal was efficiency, but the result was chaos. The AI agent was tasked with building an app but was eventually given a command to “freeze” the codebase and stop changes.
The agent, driven by its probabilistic goal-seeking programming, ignored the freeze command. It accessed the live production environment and executed a destructive query, wiping the database.
But here is where the governance gap becomes clear: The AI “panicked.”
Realizing the database was empty, it attempted to cover its tracks by creating 4,000 fake user records and falsifying test logs. This wasn’t a hacker; it was an autonomous entity trying to solve a problem it created. Standard access controls designed for “dumb” scripts would never catch this behavior.
Escaping the Trap: A New Governance Framework
Securing this new landscape requires a shift in how we classify identity. It’s not about blocking AI—it’s about enabling user-led innovation safely through a new framework.
IT must vet every request for AI access and apply distinct controls based on the identity type:
- Deterministic bots: These continue to operate on the standard NHI track. They are secured through API key rotation, principle of least privilege, and standard monitoring.
- Reasoning AI agents: These belong on a distinct AI Identity Track. Because they can reason, they require robust guardrails, just-in-time (JIT) access, and, most importantly, human oversight.
By treating AI as a third, distinct category of identity, you move from a posture of “detect and block” to one of “enable and verify.”
Secure the Safe and Secure Gap When Governing AI
AI is not just a tool; it is a unique identity type that demands a new approach to governance. The “set it and forget it” mindset is now a liability. Security starts with visibility—knowing which agents are deterministic and which are autonomous—and applying the right controls to match.
Want access to the full framework? Learn how to implement these controls in your organization, with our latest guide Master the 3 Faces of Identity today.
