I don't see how a repair that causes the nose of a plane to "fall off" would not be considered a "bigger repair"...
I'm not saying that Boeing would be involved in the replacement of a tire from the landing gear. But something major enough to make the actual nose of the plane to literally fall off? That sounds important enough to me.
The thing is, intelligence is the capacity to create information that can be separately verified.
For this you need two abilities:
If you get the first without the second, you end up in a case we call "insanity", and if you have the second without the first, you are merely a computer.
Animals, for example, often have exemplary intuition, but very limited rationalization (which happens mostly empirically, not through deduction), and if they were humans, most would be "bat shit crazy".
My point is that computers have had the ability to rationalize since day one. But they haven't had the ability to generate new data, ever. Which is a requirement for intuition. In fact, this is absolutely true of random generators too, for the very same reasons. And the exact same way that we have pseudorandom generators, in my view, LLMs are pseudointuitive. That is, close enough to the real thing to fool most humans, but distinctively different to a formal system.
As of right now, we have successfully created a technology that creates pseudointuitive data out of seemingly unrelated, real life, actually intuitive data. We still need to find a way to reliably apply rationalization to that data.
And until then, it is utterly important that we do not conflate our premature use of that technology with "the inability of computers to produce accurate results".
The real reason is that OVH put the backups right next to the systems, so when the latter went up in flames, the former also did.
But yes, that, too.
if you are at the receiving end of a mistake made my either a classic algorithm or an machine learning algorithm, then you probably won't care whether it was the computer or the programmer making the mistake
I'm absolutely expecting corporations to get away with the argument that "they cannot be blamed for the outcome of a system that they neither control nor understand, and that is shown to work in X% of cases". Or at least to spend billions trying to.
And in case you think traceability doesn't matter anyway, think again.
IMHO it's crucial we defend the "computers don't make mistakes" fact for two reasons:
Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won't waste my time listing here.
The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.
And you don't strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other's time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?
I thought that there were specific "critical" operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing's Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I'm discovering this field, so I don't know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that's why I'm asking, and not stating.
However, if one doesn't know more than me, stating isn't more correct.
We spent decades on educating people that "computers don't make mistakes" and now you want them to accept that they do?
We filled them with shit, that's what. We don't even know how that shit works, anymore.
Let's be honest here.
Isn't Boeing QA supposed to inspect the plane and sign it off after maintenance?
In the long term? The homeless. Who will likely not stay homeless for long.
I dunno about you, but I met quite a few homeless people, and they are all the resourceful kind. They organize, they don't hesitate to join forces, and they are damn resilient.
I was homeless for a few weeks in the summer about a decade ago, I slept in a park, during the day, and it was totally fine in the end, but if such law would have made me "legal to hunt", I would have likely hunted back. Or at least died trying.
Being homeless doesn't necessarily mean having no resource. For example, while I was in a crappy situation, and lost my rental overnight, I had savings. I had enough to buy a weapon and some ammo anyway, and in such situation, with nothing left to lose, I would have likely bitten the (metaphorical) bullet and found myself a new home. The confrontational way.
I'm guessing that this initiative will drive most homeless people into organized crime, and they will then have the capacity to eliminate entire small, remote, rural communities (of which there are plenty in Kentucky), including the tiny police forces, and establish a fortified settlement.
Pushing people around only works for as long as they are better off accepting it than fighting it. Push too much and you will have gangs and cartels on your hands.
Those people want the far west experience, and they should be weary of what they wish for. They might very well get it.
Edit: maybe I'm daydreaming. I dunno. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, I just wish for what I wrote to be true. Time will tell.
OK I'm officially too tired to actually contribute to Lemmy. I'll be on my way... 😭