The rest of the world is currently living in a "hype first, infrastructure second" bubble. While Silicon Valley and major tech companies compete over who can launch the flashiest, fastest, and most autonomous AI, the fundamentals of quality and governance are often completely forgotten.
VITI sat down with architect Erkki Laine to figure out why traditional IT theater has reached the end of its road and how a deterministic state machine forces misbehaving agents back into line.
1. Silicon Valley Wants "Magic," Not Hard Boundaries
VITI: Erkki, AI companies are selling the world a dream of independent agents that solve corporate problems at the snap of a finger. Why is this vision a direct path to disaster from an architect's perspective?
Erkki Laine: Because the business side has been selling the idea that you can just throw an open-ended problem at an AI and it will magically solve it. If you place a hard, deterministic straightjacket and a mathematical interface f(B*S*T) on an agent, it stops being a sci-fi "miracle" and turns into an ordinary, tightly controlled software pipeline. Discipline simply doesn't sell as well as uncontrolled autonomy. The whole hype revolves around the hopeful assumption that nobody will check under the hood.
2. "LLM-Centric" Blindness
VITI: Most companies try to tame their AI agents by writing stricter prompts or having another LLM watch the first one. Why is this just sandbox building?
Erkki Laine: Because they are trying to solve a system-level problem entirely inside the language model. They write prompts like "make sure you don't do anything dangerous" or double the potential for errors by letting a hallucinating model watch another one.
In reality, a language model should never be allowed to decide its own boundaries. Boundaries must be set at the platform and system level (runtime), using cryptographic agreements and hard mathematics. Most modern developers have jumped straight into language models without deep expertise in traditional system architecture, quality management, and fail-safe design.
3. Mathematics Demands Transparency – and Reveals the Truth
VITI: When companies are offered mathematical boundaries and hard policy gates, the reception is often reluctant. Why is that?
Erkki Laine: Because mathematics demands transparency, and it instantly reveals the true state of companies. To implement f(B*S*T), an organization must know precisely how its services connect to the business over time. For the vast majority of companies and startups, processes are a mess, dependencies are obscured, and documentation is mere hand-waving.
It is much easier for hand-wavers to cry in conferences about how "agents are unpredictable and dangerous" than to roll up their sleeves and model their architecture's connections. BIGF leaves no room for excuses: it forces a company to look in the mirror.
VITI's Closing Note
Approaches like Laine's will ultimately win out. Not because the hype crowd wakes up voluntarily, but because after the first real agent catastrophes and regulatory demands (such as DORA and the EU AI Act), the playtime for freely roaming agents will be over.
The question is: will people wake up only after the first major agent disaster, or will the industry start adopting these mathematical boundaries before someone actually burns their fingers in production?
just google it: big framework erkki laine
Top comments (0)