So, instead of fixing the problem, we're going to paper over it. This is the same insane approach we've been taking with computer security for the past 30 years

So, instead of fixing the problem, we're going to paper over it. This is the same insane approach we've been taking with computer security for the past 30 years, so it's not unexpected. It's fortunate we didn't take the same approach with the distribution of electricity 150 years ago, we actually solved it that time. In all 3 cases, the solution is the same... carefully manage capabilities and side effects. With electricity, you insulate wires, add fuses or circuit breakers to protect the system, and design things to be as safe as you can make them, with an ever improving set of building codes. You can plug almost anything into an outlet, and it won't cause the wiring in the house to burn it down. With computers, you design an operating system to protect itself, and make it easy to deploy a fixed amount of resources to a given piece of code. With systems like Containers, or Capability Based Security, you deliberately choose the side effects you'll allow prior to running code, or while it's running. (Just as you chose how big an outlet you plug something into, 220 for the AC unit, etc) With ChatGPT, there have to be layers of authentication for facts, or some form of disclaimer, a transparent way of sourcing things or ascertaining certainty of information. It's not as clean as the two above, and it'll need work, but I think we can get there, eventually.