One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive. – Hannah Arendt

might

That word is carrying a mighty big load.

What’s one that doesn’t suck?

Historical background on current events: Heather Cox Richardson.

Yeah, lots of opinions, a few facts: one of the discussions.

Sumsnag

Or as Dijkstra puts it: “asking whether a machine can think is as dumb as asking if a submarine can swim”.

Alan Turing puts it similarly, the question is nonsense. However, if you define “machine” and “thinking”, and redefine the question to mean: is machine thinking differentiable from human thinking; you can answer affirmatively, theoretically (rough paraphrasing). Though the current evidence suggests otherwise (e.g. AI learning from other AI drifts toward nonsense).

For more, see: Computing Machinery and Intelligence, and Turing’s original paper (which goes into the Imitation Game).

Yet use AI (possibly) to determine users’ AI answers.

Let’s extend this thought experiment a little. Consider just forum posts; the numbers will be somewhat similar for articles and other writings, as well as photos and videos.

A bot creates how many more posts than a human? Being (ridiculously) conservative, we’ll say 10x more.

On day one: 10 humans are posting (for simplicity’s sake) 10 times a day, totaling 100 posts. Bot is posting 100 a day. For a total of 200 human and bot posts; 50% of which are the bot.

In your (extended) example, at the end of a year: 10 humans are still posting 100 times a day. The 10 bots are posting a total of 1000 times a day. Bots are at 90%, humans 10%.

This statistic can lead you to think human participation in the Internet is difficult to find.

Returning to reality, consider how inhuman AI bots are, with each probably able to outpost humans by millions or billions of times under millions of aliases each. If you find search engines, articles, forums, reviews, and such are bonkers now, just wait a few years. Predicting general chaotic nonsense for the Internet is a rational conclusion, with very few islands of humanity. Unless bots are stopped.

Right now though, bots are increasing.

Back in 2000, there was something like that for the kernel with SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux). Which continues to live in various distributions’ kernels. Not a full O/S though, and not generally regarded as a PoS.

As to how rationales go, this is the clearest.

I hate it.

After a bit of research, I’m forced by facts (NS records can be cached for an undetermined time) to see what you’re saying. Thank you for teaching me.

The workings are, of course, a bit more complicated than what either of us have said (here’s a taste), but there is a situation as you describe, where separating the registrar from the name servers, and the name servers from the domain, could save the domain from going down.

If a registrar goes out of business, ICANN transfers the domain(s) to another registrar.

If a name server business fails, you change name servers through your registrar.

You can’t really fix registrar services in your name server, nor name server problems through your registrar. (Unless, of course, your registrar is also your name server.)