Aviation is different because their rent-seeking is enforced by the required legal hedging. I'm not sure the same incentive structure exists in the software side of things.
In other words, we might need to find some hobbies.
Rent seeking has a specific definition and it fits here. When Autopilot does almost all the critical work needed (besides announcing frivolous stuff in carbon-based voice), and you have mandatory seats for humans to babysit the Autopilot mainly to satisfy some law, the term fits.
I am not convinced humans can do much better in "disasters" than Autopilot, despite the emotional stories to the contrary (survivorship bias is one hell of a drug).
This take is so ignorant and provably false. I can't tell if you're trying to ragebait or if you actually believe this.
The autopilot does not do "almost all critical work", not even close. It only does some of the routine work (definitely not all of it). But the real critical work is when stuff goes wrong, dealing with emergencies.
The inherent complexity of aviation means that there are so many different failure modes and combinations thereof that no traditional system could ever handle all possibilities and edge cases.
I'm not going to claim that an AI could never do it. But as of right now, with current technology, well-trained pilots are absolutely critical to safety in even the most advanced airliners.
Also, the survivorship bias argument runs against you. Most events where pilots save the day are completely invisible. Like catching an incorrect clearance, a misconfigured approach, dealing with a technical malfunction, etc.
And even when disasters happen, it is very rare that simply engaging the autopilot would have saved the day. In fact, there are plenty of examples where the opposite is the case, and dropping to a lower level of automation would, in hindsight, have been better.
Your first sentence would lead one to believe that you have some substantial evidence to demonstrate the ignorance and falsehood you identified. It's impressive that you are regurgitating the same formulaic-template set of cliches that boil down to "X is so complex bro, how can you even?".
Note that I never claimed aviation relies on AI right now, most of the Autopilot systems are deterministic automation systems, but the original point stands regardless.
As an airline captain, your take is completely ridiculous. The autopilot takes care of the mechanical act of guiding the plane along the desired path, but it does nothing else. There are hundreds of other tasks we need to perform in order to effect a safe flight, and the autopilot does nothing to help us.
Really? Do autopilots diagnose threatening situations in the main cabin? Understand something unexpected happening on the ground? Visually diagnose situations? Properly identify threat levels?
It's genuinely worrying to me to see statements like this. As engineers, we of all people should know that there's 1 billion variables that could go wrong and another 1 billion we aren't even aware of yet...
It indeed is and I like this analogy a lot. A lot of critical systems can definitely learn from aviation. It's one of the finest balances of humans and automation.
> I’m getting so many 1Password prompts for agents pulling env variables out of it and with very little context of what is being accessed by who
This is a one-sentence horror story. I almost can't believe someone would let this happen, unless the 1Password account is not important (highly unlikely).
I know it sounds bad, but it’s the reality for most people, just like permission prompts at every corner and after each macOS / app update (“Your screenshot app is watching your screen”, no shit, that’s why I installed it).
Appealing to complexity is always fun. Just throwing "a lot" in there for good measure and you won't have to think about practical security implications.
> did you not expect this conversation to go into training or at least review?
Use it for training/review (RLHF, whatever) and "we load the whole thread, not the specific response or surrounding few prompts, and store it for 5 years" seem completely different things. It's not obvious why being tech savvy would automatically make one aware that the 2nd version is happening.
Who actually cares? Isn't the whole premise of the AI revolution just gorging ourselves with other people's data so we can have AGI? I was under the impression that we have accepted this sacrifice with OAI and friends leading the way.
Crypto, big data, AI. It's all just another middle man hoping to scrape some joy out of everyone's lives to they can put a price tag on it and sell it to rubes and the government(and rubes in the government).
> Unix and Linux solved all this even before Alexander III of Macedon started wearing his nappies
I mean, didn't Linux shells invent pop-up fatigue? I thought we (yes, we) all used to -y flag preemptively so the upgrades and installations/setups go through. Linux really did do it first, the agents are just more needy and their popups more verbose now, but not exactly new.
Stuff like this is highly context dependent. It is a good thing that apt asks about each step. I voluntarily add more of this by opting for things like listbugs. If I then decide to override such protections with a -y for whatever reason that's a choice on my part to prioritize convenience.
Either way it's got nothing to do with security - I was never going to catch a vulnerability in the central debian repos by reading a list of dependent packages.
It's kind of the opposite. The more typical Unix nehavior is to just assume you knew what you were doing and meant it, and not ask for confirmation in the first place. -y is just the reversion of an abberation.
> The use of Ebury and the broad collection of unencrypted data point to a financially motivated crime group.
Collection of unencrypted data points to other players as well that have been known to have great interest in Tor exit nodes etc., but they're careful and not usually this noisy, so probably newgen trolls.
In other words, we might need to find some hobbies.
reply