...Ditch the dammed AI completely and just give us the picture without messing!

"Oh, okay. You don't want to be known for your body. Very well then. Just act, and we'll put an AI body that we own, over your body, which (for now) does the acting."

No, the executive tells the civil service what it needs to do, but the civil service is wholly independent.

Sure, like people crave sugar. But change the balance of nutrients and you change the body composition.

Sure, mankind isn't going extinct over this. But nature operates in a very brutish manner. If I can avoid health problems by popping a multivitamin or something, I want to know that.

It's not just Apple too.

For me who started gaming the early rad 80s, it is the lack of resources like time, interest, energy, etc. I just play quick games when I can. I have lots of old games that I got for free from giveaways and others. Why bother paying?

If that was true, we would be able to delete Microsoft itself, and not just an app!

I can't imagine much of a solution beyond just making it giggle and say, "that's too grown up for me!" to most questions. Having a plush toy take on questions like "is capitalism good?" or "is Trump a grifter?" is just doomed from the start.

To that end, I wonder if there is (or ought to be) a different word for when everybody is in on the joke. Or is that just 'meme stock?' Nobody is buying these particular stocks in the hopes of future dividends justifying the purchase price. Whereas in bubbles like Worldcom, or early Railroads, they did. Then there's Tesla which seems to be some of both.

Logan Graham, head of Anthropic's Frontier Red Team, said the chaos represented a road map for improvement rather than failure.

So if management believes failure is success, where is the problem with bankruptcy being a major win?

You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.

"Independent" does not mean unaccountable to the people. The President is independent of Congress, and vice versa, but both are accountable to the people. Well, the current president doesn't seem to think so, but legally he is.

The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.

You are correct. In principle, presidents have no authority whatsoever to dictate how an agency runs. The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government.

In the US, in principle, the status of the civil service as co-equal to, and independent of, the executive should be added to the Constitution and enshrined in law for good measure. Not that that would help much with the current SCOTUS, but a Constitutional change might possibly persuade the current government that absolute authoritatian control is not as popular as Trump thinks.

That is the idea that, in Britain, entities like the NHS and the BBC have operated under. Charters specify the responsibilties and duties, and guarantee the funding needed to provide these, but the organisation is (supposed) to carry these out wholly independently of the government of the day.

It actually worked quite well for some time, but has been under increasing pressure and subject to increasing government sabotage over the past 20-25 years.

It's also the idea behind science/engineering research funding bodies the world over. These should direct funding for grant proposals not on political whim or popularity but on the basis of what is actually needed. Again, though, it does get sabotaged a fair bit.

Exactly how you'd mitigate this is unclear, many governments have - after all - the leading talent in manipulation, corruption, and kickbacks. But presumably, strategies can be devised to weaken political influence.