It's off-topic, but it's actually a funny story.

In the olden days, all the guitar amplifiers were designed to have low distortion. When some rock-and-roll musicians found out that distortion could sound really cool, they started having their amps modified to increase the gain to give distortion. But this proved to be a big problem for touring musicians; when an amp died, was misplaced, or was stolen, not only did the replacement have to have been modified, but each modification produced different amounts of distortion. Setting it at 7 on one amp might be perfect, but on another amp you'd set it at 8 for the same distortion. Another problem is that you'd lose the bottom end, which can be annoying when you're using an amp for a different instrument than it was made for.

So a famous touring musician asked a company to make a special model of amp. Instead of the regular dial that goes from 0-10, it would go to 11, with 5 or 7 or 10 meaning the same thing as on their regular amps, and 11 would be overdriven enough to provide some distortion. That way they could still repeat settings calculated with a regular amp. It was a huge improvement for getting good sound at venues in the short time they had to set up.

And then, partly because of his goofy public persona, all the idiots of the world decided that that he must have ordered an amp that "goes to 11" thinking it would be louder, and maybe the company just wrote "11" instead of 10. Hur hur hur hur hur. And there's still repeating that ignorant and pejorative misunderstanding to this day.

According to the story, they underestimated how many people it would take to make the game that they agreed to make for Disney, so they're way behind schedule and one of the game directors told developers, "No more hand-written code" and all art will be "generated with full AI workflows." A PR person told Bloomberg, "We're embracing AI-accelerated development, led by Epic developers who are the visionaries and creative drivers for everything we do."

Alternatively you could hunt and gather and produce everything you need by hand within a small group of people... except wait, you'd need a few billion dollars worth of land to support a few people, and there isn't enough available land for that.

If you have to rely on other people for necessities your life is centered around an economy. Even if the propaganda of your social group includes anti-establishment hyperbole.

In a business environment that could add a lot of cost. Probably nobody has experience doing that, and you're going to have to ensure it is documented well enough that a new employee who has never done it before can take it over (potentially during a crisis where you just found out there's a problem with it)

Low standards are still standards, still exist.

"I think there should be more" shouldn't turn into "there is none" as it works its way from one side of your brain to the other.

If you do that you won't even be able to make a reasonable argument for higher standards, because everything you say will be wrong, even if well intentioned.

It seems you don't know what the words mean, and aren't interested in learning.

Just as stupid today as you were last month, and every month.

That resentment has now been nurtured with immense amount of blood and will last as blistering hate for generations.

Not true. Sorry, but that is my area of expertise. Things are insecure because they are cheaply or incompetently made, configured and operated, often all of that.

You certainly wouldn't want to hire a scientist to do a critical engineering task.

You'll get a disaster calculated from first principles, but containing a small error.

The jobs in question would be the among the boringest possible jobs for a scientist.

There is no reason to suspect that that mindset would exist in nuclear operations companies. These are the stodgiest, most rigid, persnickety mindsets in the entire industrial world.

In a regular company, that makes sense, but in a nuclear plant that "bureaucratic material" is not optional, it's not there because the company decided to do it, and it can't be done by anybody; it has to be done by the right people that have accountability. Even if their accountability is mostly that their employer would be fined.

But beyond that, if they're committing gross negligence by having a computer program write it then they risk being placed into receivership and losing their investment. Nuclear power is not a "break things and apologize" industry.

The only sort of thing that it could be used for would be as a redundant alarm that notifies a human to check something even when the sensors say it is ok, for example to identify problems at an earlier stage than the older methods can achieve. And that adds costs and provides no benefit, since the existing methods have decades of 100% performance. More recent nuclear accidents have involved out-dated designs and natural disasters. The companies operating them have implicit 100% bailout guarantee from the government, assuming they do everything by the book. If they put some AI in charge of actual work that a qualified person was supposed to be doing, and just say, "Well there was a guy in an office with a hat that said Overseer," then they're gonna become a scapegoat instead of receiving a bailout.

I understand the companies making the software get a big benefit from pushing this, even though they know it isn't going to be used. It's good PR to sell their products to regular factories. But you gotta be stupid to think the companies actually running the plants are going to be interested in this.

They're legally required to do the work using qualified personnel, it's can't have done actual work.

Anything it did was redundant.

And... I mean, look, I've been reading your comments for decades, I already know you're an idiot. But this is excessive even for you. Do you not understand the stakes in nuclear plant operations? No new process would ever be used for anything without having first been tested redundantly as a simulation where it wasn't actually being used.

I could not speak to the cost/benefit ratio in Europe, but in the United States, 1.544Mb on a Frame Relay would cost more than 1Gb on a Metro Ethernet fiber connection. I know because I retired a Nortel Meridian telephone system using T1 links specifically because it was costing more than the 1Gb and later 10Gb Metro Ethernet L2 MPLS connection and had far, far less flexibility. We migrated over to VOIP phones and saved a ton of money on the ~75 service entrances we were taking care of, and the VOIP traffic was a drop in the bucket on that network.

The only thing I could think of after my original post would be to contract with a cellular provider for a private APN (think similar to a VLAN or VRF for a subscriber with a ton of individual cellular endpoints, doesn't route to the outside like normal cell carriers' endpoints can) and then bringing that APN into a cloud instance with firewalling to prevent unauthorized traffic from the Internet from being able to hit the APN in the first place, but that still requires IT security practices.

The annoying thing about a private APN and using cellular is when the carriers change-up their gear it becomes necessary to replace the cellular endpoint equipment. I've seen this happen with security system cellular (no private APN) where the 2G gear had to be replaced, they went with 3G gear, only for that to also have to be replaced when the carrier wanted to go to a minimum of 4G LTE.

... always a bad idea. With LLMs, basically incompetent people can hack all instances of such a device everywhere for cheap now.

I doubt the person you answered to has the capacity to understand that.

Obviously, when used correctly, even mu-calculus on stone tablets can be easily used to demonstrate the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis!