> Anyone who can build an API to an LLM that was provably secure against prompt injection would have a license to print money right now. Well, if you could cre

> Anyone who can build an API to an LLM that was provably secure against prompt injection would have a license to print money right now. Well, if you could create software that is provably secure against at least a large class of cyberattacks, you could also make quite some money, since I know that at least the finance industry would be willing to pay a lot of money for it (source: in the past, I had an opportunity to talk someone who is very knowledgable about software in the finance sector, and I asked him some questions about exactly this topic). Thus: we have not solved the "cyberinjection" problem for completely conventional software for decades. So I don't believe that we suddenly have the capabilities to solve this problem for LLMs. But: As I pointed out, people have come up with ideas that make cyberattacks much harder. Here, I can imagine that their ideas could be used to make prompt injections a lot more complicated. Additionally, we know from decades of experience that making insecure software secure is nigh impossible. Instead, one has to architect around security properties from beginning. The same does, in my opinion, also hold for LLMs and prompt injection.