alt Hacker NewsGP: All you have to do is put a DMZ around these things. Easy fix.
Me: Yes, all you have to do is destroy the economic value of these things. "Easy fix." [This is called sarcasm]
You: "You have to take responsibility for what you do, yes."
Given how out of left field your comment is, I can't even tell if you commented on the thread you meant to.
My comment wasn't out of left field. People are responsible for what their agents do. If enforcing that responsibility destroys "99%" of the economic value of these things, then that's what will have to happen. Personally I highly doubt that 99% is the right number, but yes, if enforcing laws about what people are allowed to do with very powerful software eats 99% of the value of that software, then it is what it is. We aren't going to end up in a situation where people are allowed to have their software do whatever it wants because of this loophole that "it wasn't me, it was a rogue agent!". It's silly and naive to think this would be the equilibrium that is reached here.
If you, like me, want to keep most or all of that 99% of economic value, then you should be interested in the ongoing development of security for agents. But just "this is how it's going to be, so oh well!" is not a serious stance, IMO.