Courts are expected to be an objective airing of evidence and any time they are not that, any party can complain and get the result thrown out. There should never be any "you can't complain about this deviation 'cause I think it helped you" clause (though courts do sometimes do this, inappropriately imo). It should have been transparently obvious that a fabricated video of a victim speaking interferes with this objectivity.
It's a shame you package your speculation inside an insult 'cause the "problem solver" as LLM booster isn't entirely wrong and aren't entirely bad.
A LLM seems like a powerful but dangerous tool. It's dangerous even in problem solving terms since one day can output something that advances your project significantly and the next day is can output vacuous verbiage that seems like a solution but is nothing.
They deserve a critical view but they make it hard to maintain that critical view.
Failure acknowledged. The fact I pay $360/year to the Times for a subscription enabling me to provide these gift links here at no charge does NOT excuse me from my inability to have prevented the Times from requiring a log-in to read them.
FunFact: The Times instituted this requirement to prevent AI/LLM from scraping and stealing its content. Clearly it was remiss.
Software is going to replace hardware. All that will be left is glowing outlines in the air. I've seen it on Instagram so it must be true. That's made possible by AI, as I recall.
Of course Dots will be the end of the PC era. Every innovation of the last twenty years was the end of the PC era and dots are just as good as those.
There's an overpass from one side of a big-box zone to the other in my area (Brunswick road over highway 20, which is a freeway at that point). One side there's a sidewalk and on the other side there isn't. It is a classic example of what Strongtowns calls a "Stroad" and many people walk across (always the poor) on the side without sidewalks exposed to uncontrolled car entering and leaving the freeway and not expecting pedestrians. I don't know any statistics but friends of mine have been injured on it.
It would be nice to fix all the things about roads. But the road in the article sounds like should be closed and the funds used to maintain it diverted elsewhere, perhaps to fix stroads.
The thing is, fully-test-your-code wasn't economical for software houses before the rise of AI. Perhaps it will become economical now but I'm not sure what would force the issue.
I feel like there's certain formula where any enshittification is justified as "this is what the normies want". And sure, all the crap is something someone might want if they didn't think for half a second. But even normies are better than that once forced to think.
Even if AI is used, the code it builds is still deterministic and will fail in a way that can be fixed.
Say that with confidence now. You'll say with shock and incredulity later, "It can be fix? Right?!?!" (Cue some meme). Reproducing bugs is often hard for well designed systems. For randomly designed systems, it's a nightmare.
Fixing software is hard and fixing bad software is harder and fixing software where you didn't even think at the time how to make it maintainable is hardest.
Legacy systems are usually systems that were well designed at the time. That's why it's worth fixing them now.
--> And none of this is saying AI designed systems are bad. But if the only criteria is "code is deterministic by default, it works and we can fix problems later" then AI seems likely a terribleness accelerator.
Code written with AI can be fixed, if well designed, they are not mutually exclusive.
Also legacy systems were absolutely not always well designed, I've picked up a fair share of systems that were absolutely not well thought out, usually due to time pressure, or any other context specific reasons.
I do believe we are creating legacy systems faster now, and it's because teams are unable to keep up with the speed of changes, not because their system is not meant to be maintainable.
My point remains tho, using AI doesn't have to mean normalizing failures.
reply