I think that it should not need to be mutually exclusive. You can make it you can enter the programs yourself (if you prefer to do for whatever reason, including, it does not work well (like you mention), or because of Dijkstra objection or other objections to the use of AI for programming the computer or AI in general), but that AI can also be possible.

> At home, I use software that is well-crafted to do some thing. Or I write a series of scripts to do narrow things that for some reason aren't in Aptitude or Snap, for example "copy all the photos off my iPhone and rename them and sort them by date in my filesystem".

> Perhaps I have no imagination, but I don't feel like having an LLM make applications on my phone. I want good software that someone that I trust wrote.

I do not use LLM either, and do not intend to do. I can write my own programs. Even if someone does want to use LLM, it should neither be required nor expected nor the default (and there are also reasons why I think that it should be discouraged to use LLM too much); you should be able to write the scripts and programs by yourself if you want to do it that way (and the computer made to make this possible to do without LLM), even if some people can make LLM to do it at their option, but it should not to require LLM and AI.

I also think that the computer that can start with a programming language such as BASIC or Forth (without first needing menus and GUI to access all of the programs) is useful, and that it is not as good that many modern computers do not do like that.

Let me add my voice to that. It's strange to me that people are now talking about LLM integration in daily-driving their computer as if it would be something desirable. As if being able to "write one's own programs" directly wouldn't be enough; as if the focus shouldn't be on just making that as easy as possible, so that you can just type out what you want instead of expecting a nondeterministic system to infer your meaning. And that's before considering the security risks.

It feels to me rather analogous to being in a foreign country and, rather than learning the local language, you get to hire this translator that works for absurdly cheap, but you have no real idea of the accuracy (because you didn't learn!) and for some reason the translator is only able to speak while physically holding your wallet.

Oddly enough, from what I can tell, AI-powered translation services are not capturing a lot of imagination, while interest in AI-powered (human) language tutoring is booming (at least on the supply side).

> you should be able to write the scripts and programs by yourself if you want to do it that way

Having chat gpt one write me a powershell script took a 3 hour manual task using software and made it a 10 minute task which I can repeat any time I fancy should I need to.

Writing something similar would've taken me an hour+ just to dig out the key pieces of information I needed to start in a language I am proficient in. Why would I waste my time?

I think that 2D graphics and games is not bad. For some things, 3D graphics might be helpful, especially if there is also 3D physics, but many games should not need 3D.

I have different ideas about the UI. We don't need the AI and fancy graphics (animations can be limited to showing where an object is moving to, and a setting can be added to control the animation speed including to disable it entirely). Being able to use programs and data together is helpful (something mentioned in the article), and then to be able to use Command, Automation, and Query Language to do queries and batch operations with them as well. You could put multiple data in one file, and include one kind of data in the other one, etc; it is not plain text but is many types of data. I made a repository with some of my ideas about computer and operating system design (this would be a part of improving it, since the existing systems have limits) and would write more in future. UI and UX is not the only issue, but also security and many other things.

If the interface is documented and can also be used without AI, and you can write your own software instead if wanted, then that will be more helpful, I think. (Someone who does want to use it with the AI can still do so, without forcing everyone else to also do.)

You shouldn't need LLM and AI to do such things. Even if such things might be useful to some people, I might want to use the API without LLM/AI and just to read the API documentation and then to make my own, and some other people might want to do similarly. In the specific case of e-commerce, I had been making my own specification of a file format for e-commerce (which is independent of the protocol), which is not intended to use with LLM/AI, but instead is intended to avoid many kind of dishonest business while also being flexible and that you could make and use your own software or some other implementaiton instead of being forced to use their UI/UX.

> namely both "private" and "public" key are the same thing; the labeling "public" vs. "private" reflects your arbitrary choice of which of one you give away, and which one you keep for yourself.

It is not quite arbitrary. With RSA, you could potentially store only the modulus and the exponents, publishing one exponent and keeping the other one private (or making each privately known to different people, with both having the modulus). However, the way it is commonly stored is with the private key file includes both exponents and several other numbers, and the public exponent is usually 65537 which makes it easy to guess so you cannot effectively keep it secret. With some other kinds of cryptography (other than RSA), you can figure out the public key from the private key even without doing things like this.

In some programming languages with RPN you can avoid this problem, because it makes sense to put it in the stack as the initial value, and then you can as easily have multiple initial values; and then the callback function can read that from the stack that you had put there, like anything else you will push into the stack to read it back later. For example, in PostScript you can write something like:

  0 exch {add} forall

However, this is not as good if you want to use the first element as the initial value instead, but still it can be done but it is then not as simple (unlike in programming languages that do not use RPN but instead with function call with arguments, in which case it might be simpler).

I guess names as SELECT and WHERE are like SQL (although SQL works differently than other programming langauges).

Something that bothers me (even though I do not drive a car and do not intend to, but sometimes am a passenger) is windows that require electric controls to operate and cannot be operated manually.

It doesn't load for me, but I have read the other comments.

There is the problem of TLS and X.509 being used with centralized authorities like this, even though it is not inherent to TLS nor to X.509 (although they were designed to be used in this way). In some circumstances, you can get a copy of the certificate (which might be self-signed) from somewhere else and then check that it matches in this circumstances. In other circumstances there are other things that can be done (e.g. TOFU, which has a different set of problems, but also has advantages in a different set of circumstances). What the security requirements are will depend on the circumstances, which can also depend on the user's intentions; they should not have to depend on a centralized authority.

(There is the issue that a single X.509 certificate cannot have multiple issuers, though. There is also the issue that X.509 certificates cannot contain unsigned extensions (they could be added after the signature, but an implementation might check for additional fields after the signature and reject a certificate that has any). Although an alternative schema can be made (I have done so), it would not work with the existing protocols.)