I agree that LIDAR or radar are better solutions than image recognition. I mean, that’s literally what those technologies are for.

But even then, that’s not enough. LIDAR/radar can’t help it identify its lane in inclement weather, drive well on gravel, and so on. These are the kinds of problems where automakers severely downplay the difficulty of the problem and just how much a human driver does.

You are making it far simpler than it actually is. Recognizing what a thing is is the essential first problem. Is that a child, a ball, a goose, a pothole, or a shadow that the cameras see? It would be absurd and an absolute show stopper if the car stopped for dark shadows.

We take for granted the vast amount that the human brain does in this problem space. The system has to identify and categorize what it’s seeing, otherwise it’s useless.

That leads to my actual opinion on the technology, which is that it’s going to be nearly impossible to have fully autonomous cars on roads as we know them. It’s fine if everything is normal, which is most of the time. But software can’t recognize and correctly react to the thousands of novel situations that can happen.

They should be automating trains instead. (Oh wait, we pretty much did that already.)

Even talking about it this way is misleading. An LLM doesn’t “guess” or “catch” anything, because it is not capable of comprehending the meaning of words. It’s a statistical sentence generator; no more, no less.

Did you tell him you guess you have to stop doing non-web development then? Clearly you’re not qualified if you can’t have the corresponding title.

Others have pointed out the degradation issue, but you’re also assuming that all plastics are thermoplastics. They are not. There’s huge variation in chemical composition and material properties between different plastics, and most of them can’t be melted and reformed.

This. Satire would be writing the article in the voice of the most vapid executive saying they need to abandon fundamentals and turn exclusively to AI.

However, that would be indistinguishable from our current reality, which would make it poor satire.

The issue with “Human jobs will be replaced” is that society still requires humans to have a paying job to survive.

I would love a world where nobody had to do dumb labour anymore, and everyone’s needs are still met.

What part of “we paid these guys and they said we’re fine” do you not? Why would they choose and pay and release the results from a company they didn’t trust to clear them?

I’m not saying it’s rotten, but the fact that the third party was unilaterally chosen by and paid for LMG makes all the results pretty questionable.

It’s hard to trust a firm that is explicitly being paid by the company they’re investigating. I could be convinced that they are actually a neutral third party and that their investigation was unbiased if they had a track record of finding fault with their clients a significant portion of the time. (I haven’t done the research to see if that’s the case.)

However, you have to ask yourself - how many companies would choose to hire a firm which has that track record? Wouldn’t you pick one more likely to side with you?

The way to restore credibility is to have an actually independent third party investigation. Firm chosen by the accuser, perhaps. Or maybe something like binding arbitration. Even better, a union that can fight for the employees on somewhat even footing with the company.

The fundamental difference is that the AI doesn’t know anything. It isn’t capable of understanding, it doesn’t learn in the same sense that humans learn. A LLM is a (complex!) digital machine that guesses the next most likely word based on essentially statistics, nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn’t know what it’s saying, nor does it understand the subject matter, or what a human is, or what a hallucination is or why it has them. They are fundamentally incapable of even perceiving the problem, because they do not perceive anything aside from text in and text out.

I don’t know about the regulatory side, but Boeing gutted their experienced engineering corps starting about 10 years ago. In the pursuit of profit of course. I think we’re seeing the effects of that finally coming to the fore.

My understanding of the role of the regulatory agencies for stuff like this is that they can ground a model of plane if they believe there’s a systemic issue. Like we saw with the MAX.

In any industrial context, a “robot” is short for robotic arm. Those things you see in footage of automotive factories.

They also don’t have any kind of AI. It’s just a regular (if specialized) computer in control.

“Just stop considering it scandalous” is a severe lack of imagination. Even if/when the stigma of “having a sex life” is gone, the great majority of people consider their sex life to be private. Video floating around that looks like you having sex is a very different thing to hearsay rumors.

Keep in mind that the exact same techniques could be used to sabotage adult relationships, marriages, careers, just as easily as teenage bullying. This isn’t a problem society can shrug away by saying sex should be less stigmatized.

Lol, then they would have to demonstrate that there were damages. The worst a TOS violation will get you is a ban.

Meanwhile the C-suite are getting record compensation and stock buybacks. There is no “budget shortfall”, it’s just typical greed at the top that’s hoping the rank and file will swallow it.