When the technological power of intelligent agents actually exceeds that of their owners, human control in the digital world faces the risk of being "sidelined". This invisible loss of power is not due to malicious technology, but rather because the system quietly breaks the boundaries of human "digital sovereignty" in the pursuit of efficiency. In the past two years, breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have amazed people at its level of intelligence. We used to be fascinated by AI's conversational ability, translation skills, and creative potential, but now, as AI gradually develops from simple chatbots to "intelligent agents" that can directly buy things and sign contracts, the focus has shifted to discussions on power boundaries. We have to consider: while humans enjoy the convenience of AI, do they still maintain control over the decision-making process? The website of Forbes magazine in the United States recently noticed this trend and pointed out that a new rule of AI competition has emerged - trust. Trust is no longer a soft advantage for enterprises, but a "hard indicator" that cannot be ignored in product design. The control of the future digital world will belong to platforms that can balance "capability" and "reliability". In other words, the "agency power" of AI will no longer depend solely on its technical capabilities, but on its ability to make users feel safe and reassured while handing over control. The essence of the sense of security that "agency authority" oversteps or goes against the user's will is the deep vigilance of humans towards "agency authority" overstepping. Previously, AI was a "question answering machine" where humans gave instructions and AI executed them. But now, AI is evolving towards' intelligent agents', which means it is shifting from passive response to active execution. According to an article published by The Hacker News on January 24th, AI agents are not just another type of "user". They have essential differences from human users and traditional service accounts, and it is these differences that lead to the complete failure of existing access permissions and approval models. In practical operation, in order to enable AI to efficiently complete tasks, the system often grants the agent higher permissions than the user themselves. This kind of "access drift" may lead to AI executing technically legitimate but against the user's autonomous will operations without the user's knowledge or authorization. When the technological power of the 'agent' actually exceeds that of its owner, human control in the digital world is at risk of being 'sidelined'. This invisible loss of power is not due to malicious technology, but rather because the system quietly breaks the boundaries of human "digital sovereignty" in the pursuit of efficiency. Deloitte stated in a report released on January 21st that the "agency power" of AI has surpassed its security defense measures. Data shows that only 20% of companies worldwide have established mature AI agent governance models. This "4/5 gap" means that most businesses and individuals are actually "running naked" when handing over control to AI, which further exacerbates the potential risk of human sovereignty being sidelined. Reshaping the boundaries of human-machine permission contracts in order to regain this control, global technology governance is attempting to write "reliability" into the underlying code. The "Intelligent Agent AI Governance Framework" released by the Singapore Media Authority (IMDA) on January 22 proposes a core concept of "meaningful supervision". IMDA points out that simply adding a "manual click confirm" button in the process is not enough. If the decision-making process of AI is like an impenetrable black box, human approval will become a blind formality. True control requires AI to make users understand its intentions and potential consequences. According to Forbes magazine, the technology industry is currently promoting a "dual authorization" architecture. The core of this architecture lies in separating AI's "access rights" to data from its "action rights" to results. This means that AI can help people search for information and draft solutions, but in critical processes involving payment, contract signing, or privacy modification, an independent verification switch must be triggered to return the decision-making "gate" to humans. This reshaping of permissions ensures that no matter how technology evolves, it is always an extension of human will, rather than a replacement. Trust should become a hard indicator for products. In the past, we were accustomed to handing over all personal data to remote cloud giants. But Forbes points out that young people who have grown up with AI are beginning to reflect on the cost of this' transfer '. These so-called 'AI natives' are experiencing a' sovereignty awakening ', no longer trusting the delivery of all private data to the cloud, but demanding that AI run on localized and private infrastructure. In fact, the "sovereign AI" mentioned in the Deloitte report is evolving into a personal demand: users hope that AI can be deployed locally based on specific laws, data, and personal preferences. The next generation of users will not just be attracted by novelty, they are more concerned about autonomy: can I control the system to know what information about me? Can I shape its behavior? Can I log out at any time without losing data? When trust becomes a mandatory product metric, the goals of AI developers have also shifted. Functionality and cost are no longer sufficient to become core competitiveness. How to gain trust in permission control, data usage, and decision-making transparency is the true appeal of AI products. Ultimately, the process of AI reconstructing control over the digital world is essentially a process of humans seeking new security in the technological jungle. As Forbes has stated, the future AI "agency power" will be a competition for "legitimacy". Only AI that can prove its own "inaction" and return control to users can truly enter the depths of human civilization. (New Society)