If I wanted an OS that was read only for security reasons I would use media with a physical switch that prevented writes. The signed reports sound like the dbus systemd log files that are 99% noise and 1% relevant.

Well, Debian has signed updates. I assume most other distros do. I'm not clear what the benefit of this is. Who are you going to trust to do the signing? Does the entire system need to be resigned after every update? At first glance this only works if your entire system is in one "file", and you sign that file with a unique signature. But who's going to know what the proper signature is?

Signing individual packages seems much more reasonable. Then two people can compare the signatures on a particular piece of software to determine that they are the same. (But for that, why rely on signatures when things like sha256 exist...unless that what they mean by signature, in which case the prior caveats still apply.)

While that is true I doubt anyone in the administration has read that book, or any book for that matter. When the head of the department of education was handed a statement to read about AI she repeatedly referred to it as “A one”. As in the sauce you use on low quality steaks.

Billionaires with more money than they could ever spend are reducing to gargling balls.

And also donated a million dollars to dear leader's inauguration.

Super Intelligence II Turbo Pro Max (Apple Edition)

I agree with you. Unfortunately, the same can be said for the current government of my own United States.

For example: everyone is always in favor of saving Hitler's Brain. But put it in a Great White Shark? Oh, SUDDENLY you have gone TOO FAR...

- Professor Farnsworth

Hey, you can still use the term "SI"... just have it represent "Slop Intelligence".

You had your own socks? Boy, you were lucky. I had to share a single pair of socks with my nine brothers and sisters.

James P. Hogan wrote about some of these concerns in his 1979 sci-fi novel "The Two Faces of Tomorrow". Sadly the biggest taken-for-granted idea from his novel that now seems fantastical is that governments and engineers cared about AI safety over profit (i.e. the AI developers did not try to privatize most gains while socializing most costs and most risks). From the Goodreads blurb "Midway through the 21st century, an integrated global computer network manages much of the world's affairs. A proposed major software upgrade - an artificial intelligence - will give the system an unprecedented degree of independent decision-making, but serious questions are raised in regard to how much control can safely be given to a non-human intelligence. ..."

You raise a deep issue worthy of a lot of discussion when you say: " A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one."

Your points also align with my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

*You* may know that, but that doesn't make it true. It *may* be true. At this stage I expect most attempts to use AI to fail. The same thing happened when computers came out. And again when personal computers came out.

Power new tools have a learning curve. AI is definitely a powerful new tool, but it's currently changing so rapidly that we haven't really started learning how it should not be used.

Well, the first computer game I found really attractive was Orbquest, a text game on a Unix system. No graphics at all.

Obsessing over graphic is at right angles to the quality of the game.

Since you apparently do not know what an AI Winter is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What a stupid response. If you want a real discussion, maybe accept that the world is not black and white but shades of gray.

In the matter at hand, yes, people can learn, even if they do not do it always and the ones that refuse, you can get rid of. No, the same is not true for LLMs. They cannot learn from what you explain to them. And that makes them unusable for most things that are a tiny bit more advanced.