Web has always fucking sucked, and it fucking sucks today. The only way to make the web technologies not suck is to use them to power a vacuum cleaner.
The point is to make money by letting people gamble on the future. What you said is a second order effect of doing the first thing. They should at least be regulated under gambling laws, doesnt make sense without it
Wait a second, you say its not coding thats getting democratized. It is the "ability to create" software... hm i wonder what would be the ability to write software? Maybe something like software engineering?
Also your example with Ferrari is completely flawed, and I dont give a fuck about what investment bankers think or do. What are you even talking about here?
Please explain the first part more than you hand waved away to make a completely unrelated metaphorical case. What is the ability to create software if not software engineering? How are both different?
The whole point of AI coding is (partial) decoupling of software from human coding.
You might as well ask what the ability is to create arbitrary images to any specification, if not painting? But AI image gen is not painting.
It’s painful and confusing to those who’ve mistaken the tool for the product. Why, you ordered that pizza for delivery, that’s not cooking! No, but it is eating.
Same thing with software. Some people just want the outcome, not the process, and it’s pointless to whinge about how it’s somehow less legitimate.
>You just had to put in the effort of learning and understanding.
Yeah it's always so weird when people anthropomorphize the harsh physical reality of learning a skill that is accessible to everyone as some sort of secret boys club, where the existing club members do not let you in, when the only difference between the members and outsiders is whether they've paid the entry fee or not.
A 10'000 hour entry fee does rule out a fair bunch of people though, in practice. While there are few artificial barriers to learning to code, there still are some natural ones, like time.
is time a barrier or a requirement? its a bit like saying time is a natural barrier to solving hashes. like yeah, its an inherent part of the process that cannot be skipped. You cannot learn without time, but thats just the laws of the universe not a barrier to learning.
98k views on basically a video that can be summed up as "ai sucks". Wonder how long before people get bored of his rants that don't touch on any technical points and ignores anything that's positive about AI. Also as the youtube channel grows, he stays more incentivized to keep his bias. Either way, hard to take this channel seriously at this point since its critism is not even critism in the sense that it brings up valid points or arguments just "fuck ai, im done, i used to write good, oh im so special i see the future and everyone in tech is brain dead but my youtube channel is the only source of truth".
Never once have i seen him actually write code or talk specifically about code or why ai sucks, just lip service to people who hate ai
But I mean flying a cessna vrs something that has fly-by-wire like Airbus jets, its not really about understanding abstractions or anything, since the plane is basically a fundamentally different machine no? Basic principles of gravity and physic apply sure, but the flying experience is 100% different and not like a levelling up thing right? Like i would not trust someone with a Cessna pilot license to fly the airbus i am on.
I'm not a pilot (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and I respect how hard it is to make split second high stakes decisions, however from my read the pilots had to ignore tons of basic sensors (including their own bodies). According to the crash report they were at a 35 degree upward tilt, which is super severe, and they thought they wouldn't crash because they had successfully recovered from a "low altitude warning" (which doesn't makes sense).
Point being it reads like following the sensors but ignoring what you can actually feel is happening, which is back to fundamentals.
I don't think people are saying a Cessna translates to flying an Airbus, more that NOT knowing the basics or forgetting them translates to dangerous gaps when flying the Airbus.
Well, they were in IFR. It was dark and they probably couldn't see the horizon. The senses can play tricks on the body when you have no frame of reference. This phenomenon is trained for of course but it is hard to avoid.
However what I do think they should have realised is that whatever they were doing (pulling up) did not work and maybe they should stop for a moment and think about their assumptions. It's in fact hard to understand what situation the plane could be in for a hard constant pull up to be the right answer. The only thing I can think of is a loss of vertical stabiliser trim, a bit akin to what happened to that Alaska airlines crash off the coast of LA. Or a sudden extreme shift of cargo forward. But then that assumption could be checked.
But the mind can also get into a state of panic that makes such reasoning very difficult. That also is being trained for. But it is still very hard to overcome.
A Cessna has very different aerodynamic issues than a jetliner. Multi-engine also has its own issues (such as if one engine dies, the airplane tries to turn around it).
Setting a Cessna down on the runway is fairly strait forward. A jetliner, on the other hand, is quite complex to land.
I don't know if you can claim one is more straightforward. Sure a Cessna flies slower and has relatively simple aerodynamics. However, you could also be operating it out of a 400m sloping grass strip with a mountain off one end.
An A320 might be flying 3 times faster but is generally flying between relatively flat, straight runaways several miles long with approaches typically flown on a stable instrument approach from several nautical miles away. It's control laws mean flying straight or maintaining a particular bank is as simple as letting go of the control stick. If anything the stick and rudder skills in normal circumstances are much less involved. Systems management, obviously the autopilot, but also environmental, hydraulic, navigation an the operational concerns are obviously vastly more complex.
Interesting, I didn't know that Cessna had a STOL conversion kit, nor that people I know locally (second hand) had done a few - they still look under performant compared to the PAC STOL family and have to wonder if they can handle short strips at high altitudes in thin air fully loaded.
A Cessna an a big jet fly by the exact same principles and they stop flying due to the exact same principles as well
Sure the procedures and parameters and automations are different (as well as things like wing positioning, engine positioning, swept wings, number of engines, sure)
But you raise the nose of both of them enough they will both stall. If you lose speed they will both stall. They will behave similarly (or maybe weirdly) enough in curves.
And I think this is what was forgotten here. Having a fancy cockpit does not make it less than a dual-engine swept-wing fixed-wing aircraft. The principles are the same
Flying at near supersonic speeds at high altitude with a swept wing airplane is quite different from low and slow with a straight wing and thick air. Jetliners have a rather small envelope at altitude where the airplane will fly, things like overspeeding it will cause it to go out of control.
A fair amount of effort goes into designing the cockpit so it feels to the pilot like a low and slow aircraft, but it is not the reality.
For example, jetliners are unstable and require a yaw damper.
We can argue semantics but the reason AF stalled is the same reason a Cessna would stall (too high of an AoA)
And fair enough the comparison with the Cessna might be bad, but compare it with a 737-200 or even an A300 and the comparison will be much closer even though the 737 doesn't have the fancy cockpit
> things like overspeeding it will cause it to go out of control.
Well that would be the case of the Cessna as well, if it has enough power
> Well that would be the case of the Cessna as well, if it has enough power
Jetliners do have the power to overspeed, and the efficient place to be in the flight envelope is quite near it. A Cessna cannot.
There's a rather small envelope a jetliner operates in at altitude. A Cessna is far more forgiving, though you can get into deep doo-doo with that if you try.
You are correct that stall recovery is the same for both airplanes.
Although I know a lot about airplanes as an engineer, I am not a pilot and have not had pilot training.
My dad would attack artillery (Korean War) by diving straight down on it. I'm pretty sure his jet was fitted with dive brakes.
The irony of not understanding almost 100% of the code on modern airplanes is actually done by instructing a program to actually generate the code. It is neither terrifying nor sad. You expect humans to write millions of lines of code? At that scale, procedureally generating code is much safer and smarter.
Those millions of lines of code can often be reduced 10x or 100x with just a bit of common sense, and with that also reducing the potential bug count by 10x to 100x.
Also unlike LLMs, traditional code generation techniques are deterministic.
I mean if you do enter a legal case, they cannot just laugh away and be like "oh DoctorOetker such a silly case". They will have to take it seriously and follow all legal procedures. I don't know why people think law is some commonsense topic when it's highly technical and domain-based.
That's called a motion to dismiss and it does happen. Maybe it wouldn't in this particular case, but not every case gets the full 9 yards of examination if one side's argument is bad enough.
Asking what they should do is literally what they do. Law is not a commonsense topic where asking whaty they should do has any meaningful implications if you do not understanding the underlying theory and precendence which requires deep domain knowledge.
reply