You left out that he doesn't only have one class.

Well, the use of AI *should* be encouraged, but that's a lousy way to do it. After graduation the students will need to live in a world where they deal with AI...but we don't know what the shape of that world will be.

OTOH, the main thing you're supposed to learn in mathematics classes is "the shape of mathematics". Learning to do the mathematics is secondary, now that calculators have advanced to AIs. (I've become nearly dependent on spell-check, but I don't really think of this as a problem.)

The tapes I was talking about were 800 bpi reels even parity. (The odd parity ones had better error recovery.)

That would have been really useful for some mag tape systems I used to use. They had too many errors for their error correction system.

OTOH, this kind of thing is very likely to have bugs. Test it THOROUGLY before folks start depending on it. Perhaps, after it passes initial tests, make it an optional choice in the installer, and require extra steps to do the install (with warnings: CAUTION: BETA FILE SYSTEM HAS BEEN CHOSEN).

File systems need more thorough testing that most software choices.

Currently a good rule of thumb is "If it's easy to check the answer relative to creating a good answer, AI is a good choice.". That's just a rule of thumb (i.e. it's not always true and use sense in applying it), and that's just "this was true up until this month from at least the start of the year". There's no guarantee that it will be true next month, but that's the way to bet. Next year gets more problematic.

OTOH, robots will introduce an entirely new set of problems. But this rule of thumb is pretty likely to be good for them when they start being significant.

Yeah, it *is* better, if you can afford it. Just don't forget that it's dangerous. Care is needed. Possibly even extreme care.

A point, but that's a place the "selection" part of evolution comes in.

I said "good method". There are lots of ways to estimate things. And using the best methods for cells, some cells will be estimated older than other cells in the same body. Many estimates rely on epigenetic markers, but those can be removed either artificially or by normal processes...but that doesn't make the cell actually younger, and here by "younger" I mean "more error free" (i.e. more similar to the initial cell from which the body was generated [and "similar" is tricky to define in this context]), what it does is allow cells that have been marked "dubious" for one reason or another to begin reproducing again. DNA copying is NOT perfect. Each cell in your body is most likely mutated from the original cell. Most (surviving) mutants are harmless, but some aren't. So cells that have reproduced the "estimated maximum safe number of times" stop dividing. (There are exceptions, like the cells linking the intestines, but those are kept to as minimal a number as is feasible.)

I had just mentioned the reason:
Cells tend to accumulate mutations. This is especially true each time they divide. And this is well known. If your evolutionary line didn't include a such a limit, you would likely not be around due to any of a number of problems, cancer among them.

There is no good marker for the "age" of a cell. Mutations tend to accumulate over life, and there's a reason for the Hayflick limit (even if it isn't universal).

Manipulating cells so that they will continue dividing is dangerous to whoever gets them. It may be necessary, but don't fool yourself about its danger. This sounds like a recipe for brain cancer.

Who is this "they"? A story I read yesterday said that PHP was being maintained by a single maintainer.

FWIW, I have a version of Debian from around 2000 that still runs. I *do* have it isolated from the internet.

Actually, and IIUC, they can do that now with proper prompting. They just make mistakes about what the universe is like. World models should be fixing that within the next year.

It's already "you get accused of", not "there is clear proof of". I've known some really bad writers that made worse world model mistakes than are typical of a wlll-prompted recent AI. (Actually, I've read some good authors who also make that kind of mistake, the difference is that do it on purpose and it fits well into the story.)

IIUC, that was a (large scale) experiment. Maybe it will work, but maintenance may be too expensive.

Sorry, but the moon has LOTS of real value. The far side, e.g., is an ideal place to set up a large radio-telescope. It's got lots of useful materials for building things for local use. It's missing a few things that we need, like air and water, so that problem needs to be handled. But it's got a low enough gravity that a "lunar launcher" is actually practical...at least probably.

Orbital velocity is "half-way to anywhere", but there isn't much there to build stuff out of.

All that said, I'm not really convinced that our technology is yet up to the job. There's considerably too much handwaving around the details, and it's not going to be cheap. This only makes sense as a part of a long-term project...and we've got a bad track record on those. (OTOH, I didn't watch the megalithic structures being built. Perhaps they were also built in surges.)