There's an interesting quote from the associated longer article [1]: > In March, researchers at Google proposed a system called CaMeL that uses two separate LL

There's an interesting quote from the associated longer article [1]: > In March, researchers at Google proposed a system called CaMeL that uses two separate LLMs to get round some aspects of the lethal trifecta. One has access to untrusted data; the other has access to everything else. The trusted model turns verbal commands from a user into lines of code, with strict limits imposed on them. The untrusted model is restricted to filling in the blanks in the resulting order. This arrangement provides security guarantees, but at the cost of constraining the sorts of tasks the LLMs can perform. This is the first I've heard of it, and seems clever. I'm curious how effective it is. Does it actually provide absolute security guarantees? What sorts of constraints does it have? I'm wondering if this is a real path forward or not. [1] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/09/22/why-ai-systems-may-never-be-secure-and-what-to-do-about-it https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/09/22/...