First, I never met a phor I didn't like.

Isn't this the plot line in the story about mainframes with dumb terminals decentralized to distribute workload to PCs?

Western AI relies on ridiculous centralized data centers while DeepSeek R1 pushes the load to the desktop. Look at the specs to run a local copy of it.

To understand the failure to march to the new drummer as in switching to AI and smartphone chips, those who remember this can relate:

BlackBerry was a dominant player in the mobile phone market during the early 2000s, known for its secure email services and physical QWERTY keyboards. However, the company failed to anticipate and adapt to the shift towards touchscreen smartphones and app ecosystems initiated by Apple's iPhone and Google's Android platform.

Despite its initial popularity, BlackBerry's reluctance to innovate and its slow response to changing consumer preferences resulted in a significant loss of market share. By the time they attempted to catch up, it was too late, and they were unable to regain their former position in the market.

This may be the plot line for Intel.

A short story "Answer" by Fredric Brown, was published in 1954. In this story, a group of scientists create a supercomputer that is designed to answer any question. When they power it up and ask, "Is there a God?", the computer's immense energy output causes a lightning bolt to strike and weld the switch closed, effectively trapping the scientists with the computer that cannot be turned off.

In a reboot, the title would be "AI".

... all your base are belong to us

For research, I use three AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek. Sometimes I get three different answers.

"1) if they deliberately create gibberish or wordsalad [sic] sessions, perhaps with the help of another AI, thereby reducing the value of the data, and 2) if they copy and paste copyright restricted documents illegally into the session, forcing the AI companies to filter the data or be liable for copyright infringement if it is found out."

Look at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Any fool can read that.

I did.

Addressing the home edition, I've applied updates that gave me BSOD, and the computer self-boots about three times and then says, "There's a problem. Wait until I fix it."

Because that ruins everything to the point that the post is indecipherable to you.

For every single machine? Is this real life?

Because Windows needs a lot of protection and Crowdstrike is a single point of failure with no failover, the solution may be litigation. "Hey! I'm the victim here. Pay up." Best practices are cheap when the damages reach a threshold.

I agree with you and others on this point:

Why the hell do we need a cluster of protection software for gatekeeping services? Bake that shit into the OS. When protection architecture is larger than an enterprise, there's an elephant in the room.

Here's an idea: When a system goes BSOD, how about if an AI at the root asks, WTF and figures out that a file has to be deleted? "Hey! This was going so well but now Windows objects to a file. Rename; notify the user to get admin. Quarantine the file and wait for an enterprise-wide solution.

Or something sorta like that.

In the late 70s, all the computers were standalone. Because no one at the time predicted connectivity, the DNA mutated, and the insecure points were never addressed because it would call for a major do-over.

Through the years to the present time, my update history lists "Security," over and over again. That's indicative of a fucking problem.

Seriously, this reminds me of the mainframe days. An idea is installed on the production model and propellerheads stick their heads out the door and say, "Oh shit, John! They're screaming. Revert! Revert!"

How about if a goddam AI clicked on the link first? Run it to the endpoint and vote yes or no.

"We're sorry, but this is possibly a stupid idea." - Access to link denied - Call Admin.