I think the reason is that the paper frames malicious AI use as a policy problem, recommending social solutions. It's actually an architecture problem.

Every generation of computing has hit a version of this. Programs could write anywhere in memory - we added protected memory. Programs could hog the CPU - we added preemptive multitasking. Desktop apps could call any OS function - the iPhone sandboxed them. Nobody asked programs to please behave, the containment actually went into the infrastructure.

AI skipped that step entirely. We went straight to open-ended agents with broad permissions and tried to make them safe through alignment and prompting. I've been researching this for the past year and I think alignment is necessary but not sufficient, because the intelligence increasingly isn't in the model. It's in the substrate - the harness, the domain knowledge, the tooling around the model. I actually measured this on real coding tasks: Sonnet with a code-derived index outperformed the frontier model (Opus 5.8) exploring on its own, and the top-tier model (Fable) refused the real work entirely! The cheap model with the right rig beat the expensive model without one. https://safebots.ai/matchup.html

If that's true then aligning the model doesn't solve the problem. A bad actor who can't get the best model just uses Sonnet. Or Llama. Or Kimi. The weights have already leaked and bits don't degrade - you can't recall them the way you can stop manufacturing CFCs.

So what do you actually do? Same thing that worked for CFCs. You gotta first build the safe version — in this case, declarative workflows running in sealed compute environments — and prove it handles 99% of actual use cases at lower cost. Let it win commercially. Then regulate the dangerous version. DuPont developed HFC refrigerants first. The Montreal Protocol became possible BECAUSE of that. The ban became politically viable because the alternative already existed.

I've been building this alternative for the past 8 months: https://safebots.ai/about