I have to remember this for the next Christmas party at my company!

Security engineer: boss, I have found a very strange tweet from mr. Zap25. I think his account has been hacked because he never uses those words in any of his other tweets.
Me: no sir, I did indeed not send a Tweet to your wife telling her she can take her bloody christmas-bonus and shove it where only her mistress dare go. I would never use such words, besides I have no knowledge of your wife's sexual preferences and/or partners nor do I ever wish to as long as I work for this company. I think I was hacked indeed.

Also: somebody remind me to give Larry (our security engineer) a good bottle of Southern Comfort before the Holiday season starts.

Agreed: never put all your eggs in one basket.
Especially if they're not actually eggs because "We are talking about DHS's crown jewels."

Maybe I'm a simpleton, maybe I wasn't bribed by a lobbyist to grant a services contract to a capitalist for-profit company.
But I think the CIA, NSA, FBI and the Pentagon not only have the competence, but also the resources and knowledge to provide bulletproof cybersecurity services. But that's the thing about the DHS isn't it? Like many departments they are lead by people who suffer from the "Not invented here" syndrome:
If the DHS didn't come up with a solution for their cybersecurity problems it is because no other solutions exist within the government. It cannot be that other departments have solutions, let alone that these solutions may be better than anything developed outside the government.

There's a difference between "the occasional awkward or uncomfortable word" and saying (literally):
"It is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17"

That sentence shows a complete and total lack of empathy towards victims of rape.
It also shows a complete and total lack of understanding how society works.
Or how age of consent is determined.
Or adulthood.
Or pedophilia.

Especially considering mr. Stallman made this remark in defense of mr. Epstein.

Where do you see a lack of self-awareness?
I mean: the mr. Anonymous C. you are responding to is very aware of himself. Especially the part where he gets angry about things and then apologizes. Not only is he aware he gets angry, he's also aware whom and/or what he is angry about and apologizes.

If you wonder where his son is getting his anti-social attitude from: you do not wonder about that at all, do you?
Admit it, it's just a thinly veiled insult at the man's parenting skills. Which is a low thing to do really, considering how he just explained how he tries his best to set a good example and correct his son's anti-social behavior. To no avail.

But then your whole comment consists of thinly veiled insults at him and the rest of Slashdot.
In a different Milennium most of Slashdot would respond by putting back the "Don't feed the Trolls" sign.

I prefer to go another, perchance a more Pythonesque considering my program language preferences, direction:
I think you.. mr Russki3433 are actually his son. I think you two just had a tiff because you didn't get your college recommendations and you're blaming your dad for it. Here, on Slashdot.

Mr. Stallman is still in denial about his autism.
And autism is not an excuse for being a genuine asshole towards other people.
I should know because I've been diagnosed with autism 5 years ago. Like many autistic people around me I have my bouts of "general lack of empathy for people". But one of the things I have learned that prejudice is a human trait. It seems to stem from ancient times where if you thought you saw a lion the best course of action would be to not question ones assumption, but to just go with it.
Now Mr. Stallman may agree that lions are not human.
He obviously disagrees that females are humans, because he does not treat them as such.

I'm just another dumb male. And research has shown that my iq drops several points when surrounded by females I deem attractive. This was explained to me by an attractive and intelligent psychologist whom I now consider a good friend (and not a threat). It turns out that when humans are presented with a specimin of the same species they consider attractive, much of their intelligence is applied in attempts to entice this other human into recreational activities that used to be related to reproductional processes.

When these attempts fail consistently many human beings seem to lack the intelligence to learn and adapt.
So my guess is that mr. Stallman is not only in denial about his mental disabilities.
He is also quite unaware or in denial about being a human. One ability most humans have is to recognise other human beings and treat them as such. In other words: he is and has been an asshole, and he refuses to apologise or even change his ways.

There are already too many assholes in the free software community if you ask me.
Mr. Stallman has been a hero of mine, and in the free software community he still is... to an extent.
But if you publically state that "It is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17" you cross several moral lines in my book. You may consider it morally absurd to define 'the age of consent' with a certain number. You may even consider the concept 'country' as morally absurd. I find it morally despicable to use the word 'rape' and 'minor detail' in the same sentence.

Exactly!
Industrialization did not improve the quality of life for everybody. It basically meant that besides workers that get shit pay in farming there's now also factory-workers that get shit pay working in factories. And besides filthy rich landowners there's now filthy rich factory owners.
Similarly automation and the age of information did not improve the quality of life for everybody. It only redefinied "old money" and "new money".

As I mentioned before: Artificial Intelligence doesn't even exist yet. Most scientists cannot even explain to you what intelligence is or how to spot it, most government agencies will tell you intelligence is not something the average citizen can be trusted with.
AI is just the latest fad that is used to inflate the current tech-bubble.

I'm not exactly sure how this particular tech-bubble will burst, or even when.
Heck, I don't even know whether the tech-bubble will burst before the Chinese real-estate bubble.
All I know is the next few years will bring all sorts of marvellous entertainment in the news.

Of course it is a triumph of Slashdot moderation. Every day the Slashdot moderators can convince us they are human is a good day.
I don't even need the result of any Turing test or evidence of any acts of self pleasure for that (regardless what choreographies were involved in aforementioned acts).

But to answer your question: we will do the same thing we did with the imaginary 90% of the people we assumed we would not need after the industrial age was replaced by the age of automation: nothing, those 90% do not exist.
Both the industrial age and the age of automation only increased the need for human beings.
And we can historically verify there was an industrial age and that we are still in the age of automation. Artificial Intelligence does not yet exist in any way shape or form.

As for the state of A.I. the editors of Slashdot were kind enough to add a news item on the same day from a company run by the other person quoted in CNBC's article: mister Elon Musk.
The state of A.I. in his company is illustrated quite fittingly:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/21/03/27/2032200/teslas-full-self-driving-beta-called-laughably-bad-and-potentially-dangerous

Ever so often a Media outlet such as CNBC will quote a naive priviliged human being who is considered an expert. And we all know how easy it is to be considered an expert in the Media. Not too long ago Elizabeth Holmes was considered an expert in the field of medicine.

To give credit where it is due: mister Samuel H. Altman did manage to co-found and shut down a startup without angering too many investors into legal shenanigans. But I would not put my money on any of his predictions, when he started in 2014 as president for Y combinator he hoped he would expand the company into funding 1,000 startups per year.

What we are going through here is just another A.I. summer, which will be inevitably followed by an A.I. winter.
Possibly another tech-bubble will burst and some investors will lose the money they invested in another set of thinly-veiled ponzi-schemes. Although nowadays the term for those is apparently "startup".

So far, even after decades of research, there is not one artificial system on this planet that shows any form of intelligence.
Sure, we have machines that can beat a person on chess, checkers and go.
But iRobot can still not make a machine that can recognize the difference between dirt an a dog turd.
There isn't even a robotic vacuum cleaner out there that can handle concepts like "stairs" let alone the difference between "objects I can safely suck into my belly" and "objects I'd better avoid because I'll only smear them allover the house in a way that will make it impossible for me to deny any responsability".

The average human being does not even know what intelligence is.
They can't even recognize intelligence (or the lack thereof) in other human beings. I think this article proves that point, but if you need more proof: just look at the US elections.

Many a company out there would like you to invest your hard earned dollars into the latest hype called "machine learning".
Machine Learning can not and will not ever produce anything intelligent. Any system applying machine learning can only handle a limited set of tasks it is trained for. It can only deal with data and situations it is trained to deal with. It cannot learn from failures, it will not adapt.

So let's all enjoy these hilarious articles for what they are: entertainment.
And more importantly: let's keep a scrupulous eye on companies that have "don't be evil" in their corporate code of conduct, but who fire employees trying to live up to that code of conduct in the field of A.I. ethics.