There is a real and large market for buggy software. Nobody likes the bugs, of course, but everybody loves for the software to be cheap. Many business ventures are deliriously happy to use cheap buggy software that sometimes creates problems for their team, so long as most of the time it makes a lot of money.

For such markets, Agile is great. Developers very quickly churn out buggy software which can be sold for cheap precisely because it was churned out quickly. The magic phrase is "good enough." It's not perfect, it was never intended to be. It's cheap and "good enough," and so it outsells everything else on the market because the other packages are priced way too high. And they are priced too high because they spend too much time developing perfect software.

Many technicians have a really hard time with this. They want to take pride in their work, do things well, make software that is reliable and performant and not buggy. They will go on and on about how unwise and short-sighted it is to churn out buggy crap under deadlines that are too short to allow for property quality control. And, in a different market, they would be right. But in a market where the client wants cheap software quickly, and has a tolerance for bugs, the way the business wins is by churning out cheap buggy crap.

In other words: Agile.

When I use AI to generate my code, I generally do it in small steps. I do all the design work myself and just break out the implementation for the AI, and I never give it too much work at once, for the very reasons you just complained about.

Its a bit more of an issue when I must code review work done by junior devs who literally did just try to tell the AI to do it all for them. That experience has been similar to what you are describing, for me at least. I am unsure if these devs are actually getting better at coding, or if we are moving towards a peculiar future in which the generation of senior devs who actually understand code well enough to make effective use of AI have all retired, leaving behind a generation of people who can only feed requirements to an AI and then flail when it doesn't work.

It seems like the issue of AI hallucination is widely promulgated and widely known. I mean, this site has an overrepresentation of technicians who tend to think of highly esoteric tech information as common knowledge just because they work with it every day.....but I don't think this quirk of AI behavior is in that category.

And yet, people keep making this same mistake precisely where it matters. We get stories like this every other day. I have seen it at my own job, where my own boss who still has some semblance of technical talent was downplaying the risk of AI hallucination in a pipeline that would have the AI directly manipulating mission critical data prior to an import.

It is surreal how people want the AI hallucination problem to just stop being a problem the moment it is inconvenient for them. People who should know better let their wish for a reliable AI override their knowledge that AI is not reliable, and they just move forward with it.

I fear things are going to get worse, because we really seem to be failing to learn the obvious lesson here.

When the predicted event is ten years out, that means that it is still pure science fiction.

Everyone acts in their own best interest.

Big Tech messaging about what kids should learn is designed to benefit Big Tech in some way. Any truth-value to their statements would be secondary.

The fact that a message comes from "Big Tech" should never be used to give it credence, but merely to determine who would benefit. Evaluation of benefits to anyone else must be done independently.

May AI will acquire control of the orbital weapons and use them to kill all humans!

We might create a powerful AI that manages to acquire control over weaponized robots, and send them out to do the job.

But humans are so frightened of this that anything we might call "warbot" or "killerOS" or whatever will be dead on arrival. It would require a different marketing strategy.

Someone will sneak it under the radar by making it sound like some sort of positive, joyful AI operating system. Maybe we would call it something like....

Joyful OS.....
HappyOS....

Or maybe...

GLaDOS........

"Staying ahead of everyone else is hard. It costs a lot of money, and we don't have effective monetization in place yet. So, we want everyone else to slow down so it will be easy for us to maintain our position of top dog while we figure out how to become profitable."

That's what I took away from the call for a slowdown, anyway.

I think it is funny that the tech community tends to take a very dim view of AI drones and other weaponization of artificial intelligence, and yet, the very instant we get our hands on something that we can train to play doom, we do.

"If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.”
  Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Do people still buy audio CDs?

Most, if not all, scientific research is weaponizable. This seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

This attitude is common among religious believers who face accusations that the reason their beliefs require faith is because there is otherwise no good reason to believe them.

The cold hard fact is that ALL knowledge is uncertain. We can't know anything for sure, because all our sources of knowledge are suspect. The experiences we have might all be illusions. Things that seem obviously self-evident might only seem so because our brains are broken (or otherwise lying to us). We have no means, even in theory, to arrive at knowledge that is absolutely, indisputably, and obviously true.

It gives the word "knowledge" a somewhat weaker definition than we would like. But that's what we've got to work with.

The real difference between religious teachings and scientific models is that religious teachings are based on some person-or-group who claims to have had a special experience or be a special kind of person and as such has access to knowledge that nobody else does. And so we should believe just because they said so. Scientific models, on the other hand, are based on repeated observations that have been attested-to by many people under very rigorous testing conditions. Neither has absolute proof, but science has "a whole bunch of us saw this and still see it every time we look" whereas religion has "people long ago wrote this down and there is no way to test it now."

Religious belief tends to be bolder, giving answers to more questions that we would like answered. Science tends to be more conservative, admitting to its limits and only answering the questions that it can answer from the data. So, religious answers are often more marketable. But they still come from more dubious sources.

And that's why religious beliefs require "more faith" than scientific models, even though scientific models can be really hard to understand.

With new technology comes new power, and that is always frightening. Every tool can be weaponized, and AI is no exception.

This never means that we should shirk the technology! Yes, it brings danger, but that's only because it brings utility. We want and need that utility. Our technological ascendancy is the most critical part of our evolution, at this point.

We are going to have to adapt to the problems that the new tech is bringing. That might be hard, but we have this new tech to help us do it. That is the right way forward.

I am trying to parse what you are saying.

Are you saying that "Brains display human level intelligence" is just a matter of personal belief, and not settled science?

Or that "Brains are constructed in wombs" is just a matter of personal belief, and not settled science?

Because those are the two pieces of evidence that I cited, and the simple observation of these things is neither stupid nor arrogant. Nor is it, nor anything else I said, deceptive. This is all very clear from an objective reading of the thread history.

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt, since religious thinking is a widely recognized phenomenon that makes people take the sort of self-contradictory position that you have, and do things like read-in to simple statements a lot of implications that aren't there in order to defend against any threats to their existing beliefs.

It is a very understandable reason for speaking as you do. If this is not your motivation, then your statements make even less sense.

To put it plainly: even if physicalism has not been proven, my statements still stand. They don't require physicalism to be true, as stated. Your fierce reaction to my statements is what suggests religious thinking.