I think "OS" has too much baggage as a term for what Karpathy was describing. As a term, it implies a specific kind of implementation that doesn't necessarily

I think "OS" has too much baggage as a term for what Karpathy was describing. As a term, it implies a specific kind of implementation that doesn't necessarily reflect the high-level properties he laid out - all the user journeys and applications he lists are something you could implement in userspace. They just require interfacing with files and the internet and other software, not kernel-level access to those resources. Incidentally, I'm working on building such a system. And I have a different thesis: LLMs should be given nice interfaces and APIs to use for the same reason we prefer them. A deep interface, such as the way Linux unifies all the different I/O and networking semantics with shared APIs, makes using the system easier with less risk of mistakes or need to reinvent the wheel. Exposing those to LLMs allows them to spend more cycles fulfilling the user's need as-stated, and less cycles fiddling with hardware and core OS functionality.