You wrote a good article. I made a restack with my critique of a particular aspect. Don't take it personally, I'm trying to help you, and the public, RE this critical discussion. Keep doing the good work to emphasize that AI is not this superman, fix it all that the PR guys are trying to make it into.
This is a great response, thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a thoughtful critique.
You nailed it the stakes are incredibly high here, and the Boeing case is a gut-wrenching example of what happens when human checks are removed. I'm with you 100% human verification can't be optional, and it's frustrating to see AI sold as a replacement for an engineer's good sense.
I was trying to make that "human-in-the-loop" point in my piece, but you're right that I could have gone deeper on the systemic flaws and who is ultimately held accountable. I really appreciate you holding this conversation to a higher standard. The way this tech is being marketed is a huge concern, so thank you for being a voice for responsible engineering. Let's keep at it.
Apologies, I shouldn't have said "arrogant bastards" so I've changed that wording.
PS: Is it too much to ask that you, with your large audience that you've undoubtedly worked hard for, kindly restack my note to help create awareness, especially given the gravity of the situation? As you should know, my barely started voice on this platform is getting drowned out amidst the unfortunate hype that is being blazed out by the PR types, with coffers full on new dollars from you-know-where.
So, we’re swinging the pendulum back to a heavy QA mindset? That’s how our coding muscles atrophy. Why not force the machines to do the boring grunt work of verification instead?
You wrote a good article. I made a restack with my critique of a particular aspect. Don't take it personally, I'm trying to help you, and the public, RE this critical discussion. Keep doing the good work to emphasize that AI is not this superman, fix it all that the PR guys are trying to make it into.
This is a great response, thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a thoughtful critique.
You nailed it the stakes are incredibly high here, and the Boeing case is a gut-wrenching example of what happens when human checks are removed. I'm with you 100% human verification can't be optional, and it's frustrating to see AI sold as a replacement for an engineer's good sense.
I was trying to make that "human-in-the-loop" point in my piece, but you're right that I could have gone deeper on the systemic flaws and who is ultimately held accountable. I really appreciate you holding this conversation to a higher standard. The way this tech is being marketed is a huge concern, so thank you for being a voice for responsible engineering. Let's keep at it.
Thank you Addy 👋
Apologies, I shouldn't have said "arrogant bastards" so I've changed that wording.
PS: Is it too much to ask that you, with your large audience that you've undoubtedly worked hard for, kindly restack my note to help create awareness, especially given the gravity of the situation? As you should know, my barely started voice on this platform is getting drowned out amidst the unfortunate hype that is being blazed out by the PR types, with coffers full on new dollars from you-know-where.
All the best 🙏
It's taken AI to realise that XP approaches developed decades ago are actually pretty handy
So, we’re swinging the pendulum back to a heavy QA mindset? That’s how our coding muscles atrophy. Why not force the machines to do the boring grunt work of verification instead?