[Benplace]

858TB with no off-site backup? What is wrong with people? Hopefully it doesn't come down to someone not approving enough of a budget for the guy to do his job.

[William May]

In response, I will tell you that I talked to ONE of the computer programmers for the "Osirus-Rex" mission, who happened to be one of my lathe students at the local makerspace, Xerocraft in Tucson.

Osirus-Rex was the mission to intercept a moving asteroid, fly to it, land on it, take samples, and leave it and return to earth. ALL DONE ROBOTICALLY. This was an absolute PARAGON of proper programming. EVERY SINGLE OPERATION WENT PERFECTLY. IN FACT, THE ENTIRE MISSION WENT FLAWLESSLY FROM LAUNCH TO RETURN LANDING!

I asked him if they EVER used "Off the shelf programming" for a space mission. He just laughed and said "NO FUCKING WAY!"

Even if they DO use some software from outside, it NEVER goes directly into a spacecraft system. EVERY LINE OF CODE is tested in numerous different combinations, to make sure there are no unforeseen problems with how it inter-acts with other computer code, or operating systems. This process is painstaking, and takes a LOT of time and effort. But they never deviate from it. The result is something like the complete success on the Osirus-Rex mission.

The problem with programmers, is that NONE of them EVER worked in a critical sphere, such as in aviation. In aviation, there is NO MARGIN for error. "No margin for error" is something that NO PROGRAMMER HAS EVER EVEN ATTEMPTED. They are Lazy, Sloppy, Inattentive to detail, and lack any thoughts about how their software can interfere with, or successfully interface with, OTHER software.

In fact, ELON MUSK is the guy where I got the "We'll get the software out, and fix the bugs later" quote. Crappy work like that is behind ALL the computer programming since 1995. I am willing to bet that NOT A SINGLE COMPUTER PROGRAM HAS EVER WORKED RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

This is insane! If these guys were allowed to engineer aircraft parts or systems, aircraft would be crashing at an astronomical rate, with subsequent loss of life.

Contrariwise, if they had painstakingly engineered and tested all their software and programming, nearly every computer would work without a problem. There would be no problem with viruses, spam, and such things as spoofing phone calls, because those defects would have been corrected at the programming stage, and would NEVER have been available for "hackers" to take advantage of.

The fact that ALL these problems exist, is proof that my claims are correct and accurate.

The statement that it's NORMAL to have these problems, is also proof that A.I. doesn't know it's ASS from a hole in the ground.

"Spam calls: This is largely a consequence of economic incentives (cheap automation, spoofing, telecommunications regulations, international routing), not just software bugs. Even “proper programming” can’t prevent abuse if the attackers have the infrastructure and incentives to exploit weak regulatory controls, loopholes, or vulnerabilities in telephony infrastructure (e.g. SS7 abuses, SIM‐swaps, carrier interconnects"

REALLY? You just identified ALL the specific problems, and then state that they are just a normal part of computer programming!

How insane is THAT?

I just gave you an example of how, with PROPER AND COMPETENT PROGRAMMING, all problems are eliminated BEFORE the software is released.

THEY JUST DID IT! And they showed EVERYONE how it can BE DONC SUCCESSFULLY!

But I don't hear ANYONE in the computer field saying: "We now have a NEW PARADIGM to shoot for! They just give the same limp excuses: "Well, it's a tradeoff, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

They aren't trade-offs. They are just lazy, slack people providing excuses for why they do such shitty work, and have such low standards.

That is ALL the justification by the A.I. answer is. Just a rehash of why things are as screwed up as they are now.

When I do my work on an airplane, there are NO TRADE-OFFS! There is only ONE final optimal result.

The RESULT is the target. So just what TARGET are these yokels shooting for? Half-assed is good enough?

That is a pretty poor target. Thank God that Rolls-Royce, the Duesenberg Brothers, DaVinci, Vermeer, and the other incredible creators of truly great things, did not have THAT as their target.

Rant over. But EVERY word I said is absolutely TRUE!

[William May]

Also, I don't give A.I. even ONE corn! It is looking like a repetition of the 1990's, where the lowest and most incompetent is "good enough"

A.I. ITSELF has just confessed, in the statements you quoted, that it has no concept of accuracy and high performance. It doesn't even mention that in it's comments.