Might be flagged as slop but I asked Opus to do this and was very unimpressed by the result so when I got Fable I asked it to redo.

I need to spend some more time reading Fable's one but so far I'm quite impressed. This paragraph was also interesting

> And the question this site exists to raise: why not an AI king? It is 2026; the thought is no longer science fiction, and a document written by an AI owes it a straight answer. The answer is no, and the reason is not that the AI would be stupid. It is that the proposal does not solve the power problem — it relocates it, to whoever trains, instructs, audits, and can switch off the AI, which is to say it creates the most concentrated and least transparent throne in history and then asks who holds it. Premise 5 does not care that the throne is made of silicon; it asks, as always, who corrects the error? — and premise 9 guarantees there will be errors, baked invisibly into objectives and training data, executed at machine speed. An unaccountable perfect ruler is a contradiction: unaccountable means the errors do not surface, and errors that do not surface compound (premise 9) until they are catastrophic. What AI is actually for, in utopia, is the opposite role — instrument, not throne: the auditor that reads every public contract for theft, the translator in every courtroom and clinic, the forecaster that prices the migration formula, the tireless eye that makes transparency-by-default searchable by anyone. Mechanical, inspectable, swappable, and subordinate. Take it from the AI: do not crown one.