Discussion
trouble with both the Microsoft and FAA fuckups is that both are fully explicable by normal idiot management decision making around IT
so before we can state in an article/episode that either was caused more or less directly by the AI, and not standard pre-AI incompetence, we need more direct evidence
it's most frustrating
I don't feel like it's my responsibility to tell anyone "perhaps this wasn't a direct failure of AI, it's more complex than that"
When those who have foisted AI into everything have done less than nothing to educate people about what this technology really is, what it can and can't do.
If the general public thinks "they put AI in it and then it broke" well then. How is that different from "they put AI in it and now it's amazing" ?
There is also a big incentive to hide any evidence that this is the case if true.
So, in a way we can only look at the wider picture. Have there been more software failures as of late? Have they happened in ways that we might not normally expect?
And even if there was evidence that it was vibe-coded software that failed some would still say that it was just "not prompted correctly" or "not reviewed enough" etc. so in the end it's always human error.
But that's the point.
@davidgerard in pre-AI terms, they’d be like the 100-year floods that we now see every few years
@davidgerard is it that big a difference, given that AI and nonsense tech management come from the same culture? but: yes, it's a frustrating wait for the SuperFail.
@davidgerard I think MS is more about the cloud compute cartel that the hyperscalers run. They don’t need to be good so they arent