That said - thinking this through some more I wonder if we could give an AI agent elaborate rules on what is and/or isn't acceptable through an MCP and let it do that "peer review"...
It is a bit of a different thing than pipelines because in every organisation I've worked at you're expected to have a peer review via pull request for anything going to production - and that is before the change is merged/pipeline triggered. The idea is that anything super-nefarious should be caught by the peer during the PR review and questioned/denied before it can happen.
I doubt we'll want each prompt we make that could leverage an MCP to be peer reviewed beforehand in the same way.
At first glance this feels very much like GKE Autopilot and/or AKS Automatic. So now all three cloud providers have a more-fully-managed managed Kubernetes.
Part of the reason why they are including the managed add-ons is that they likely are going to be blocking your ability to escape your container with privileged DaemonSets to run things like those yourself in this model. GKE did something similar but eventually had to build a program for their security and observability partners to have their agent DaemonSets allow-listed through their block so that their tools could run on Autopilot - https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/resources/au.... We'll see if AWS ends up doing a similar thing there too.
I have been in a platform team who tends towards analysis-paralysis and wanting to not use any of the managed EKS stuff as well as a security/compliance team getting more active/aggressive around our K8s. So it might be nice actually to just have fewer choices "e.g. sorry - we have to use the AWS CNI / Load Balancer Controller because EKS Auto" as well as throw more of the compliance stuff over the fence at AWS (assuming they get all the usual compliance certs on it).
But I am sure there'll be some sort of limitation(s) that keeps us from using it for the foreseeable future - so I am not getting my hopes up in the short term...
I work for an Enterprise SaaS company who has a "Contact Us" pricing and fully agree with the sentiment. This is how it was explained to me:
* Since we sell mainly to Enterprise they all have procurement people who get measured on how much money they save - with some getting crazy bonuses if they can "save" 50%. So we needed to keep the price inflated by 50% until it gets to them so they can "twist our arm" down to the real price to show their value.
* And if a procurement person can get that 50% off our competitor such that the deal with them makes them look better they'll pick them instead.
* And when we used to put that 2X the real price price on our website some people wouldn't know to twist our arm for the discount and instead just thought we were too expensive. It was also abused by our competitors who were all "Contact Us" to make out they were cheaper than us without giving us the chance to compete.
So instead we do this stupid dance that I hate where we can't even tell the real price to the people in the early meetings (keeping that for procurement at the end of the process) - and we have to do all this fishing to find out who else they are looking at and what their price is that we have to beat before giving them our price. The entire purpose of our Sales Execs is to do this dance to decide whether to give a price and which price they tell to various people at the various stages as far as I can tell - though they actually are pretty good at it...
I came from Amazon where the price was public as were the mechanisms to lower it through various types of commitment so I found the whole thing ridiculous. I have since learned that everybody does it this way and this seems to be the reason. I argued "maybe if we are the one who doesn't in our space then we'll get more business for being the easiest one to deal with?" but I was assured that was not the case and it would just mean procurement people would want 50% off our best price instead...