peteradio

> The lesson is, business people will gladly let safety lapses occur with software because

I'm going to stop you right there and refer you back to the 4lb hammer. If you are being pushed around to build violently shitty stuff you are part of the problem.

> DAG of other devices

Its well known you can infer the safety of a specification by assessing a small subset of its features. Quod erat demonstrandum. /s

But seriously, this is how backdoors are trivially integrated.

That was 40 years ago! What lessons were learned from that are even relevant to this? Should I be worried about early days development lessons today or the billion of lines code dependency for a simple medical device? You are aware of the trillion dollar target on the smartphone back? You want to incorporate that into you medical device for what possible reason?

> slapdash in-house solution that will almost certainly be worse.

Truly libelous shilling for the app store.

Ok but hands off my chickens hoa clucker

I've seen self described "product owners" claim to build using LLM outputs without knowing how to code.

Money won by definition is not lost so therefore I'm rich!

I guess a general application of statistics and control is going to be called ML then? If that's the world we're living in then I wonder how the missing fraction are being governed. Pure malice?

> All he had to do to win was use a different stick shaped object for the test.

His WEEEENNUS?????

I'm saying that forcing particular technology leads to worse products in many cases.

Teams doesn't even do copy paste or open Microsoft based formats in under 10 seconds (IME)... I rest my case.

I'm not talking about LLMs in particular. I guess this is a company wide mandate to grow knowledge of how to do this stuff well, I mean that makes sense. But in the trenches (aka hells-ahole) that means a lot of bad bad stuff is being relied on and it generates calcification of business segments and kafkaesque anti-patterns for the uninitiated. This doesn't only apply to "AI" its a generic feature of shoe-hornings. The problem with the shoe-horn is that its politically costly to resist even if it makes good business sense to resist at the micro level.

Does it make a difference of context whether or not they've successfully shoehorned only 99%?