Yeah, software is already not an deterministic as I'd like. I've encountered several bugs in my career where erroneous behavior would only show up if uninitialized memory happened to have "the wrong" values -- not zero values, and not the fences that the debugger might try to use. And, mocking or stubbing remote API calls is another way replicable behavior evades realization.

Having "AI" make a control flow decision is just insane. Especially even the most sophisticated LLMs are just not fit to task.

What we need is more proved-correct programs via some marriage of proof assistants and CompCert (or another verified compiler pipeline), so more vague specifications an ad-hoc implementations that happen to escape into production.

But, I'm very biased (I'm sure "AI" has "stolen" my IP, and "AI" is coming for my (programming) job(s).), and quite unimpressed with the "AI" models I've interacted with especially in areas I'm an expert in, but also in areas where I'm not an expert for am very interested and capable of doing any sort of critical verification.

I mean, I've been saying this since LLMs were released.

We finally built a computer that is as unreliable and irrational as humans... which shouldn't be considered a good thing.

I'm under no illusion that LLMs are "thinking" in the same way that humans do, but god damn if they aren't almost exactly as erratic and irrational as the hairless apes whose thoughts they're trained on.

That "30% of population = dipshits" statistic keeps rearing its ugly head.

As someone who takes public transportation to work, SOME people SHOULD be forced to walk through the car wash.

I'm not afraid to say that it took me a sec. My brain went "short distance. Walk or drive?" and skipped over the car wash bit at first. Then I laughed because I quickly realized the idiocy. :shrug:

200 m huh.

I like that it's twice as far to drive for some reason. Maybe it's getting added to the distance you already walked?

I agree with you but found that DeepSeek was succinct.

You need to bring your car to the car wash, so you should drive it there. Walking would leave your car at home, which doesn't help.

Your post is much longer than it needs to be. That is the reason why, because they just copied people.

Extension cord? It must mean a hose extension.

This is why computers are expensive.

Dirtying the car on the way there?

The car you're planning on cleaning at the car wash?

Like, an AI not understanding the difference between walking and driving almost makes sense. This, though, seems like such a weird logical break that I feel like it shouldn't be possible.

I hope this is satire.

There's a difference between 'language' and 'intelligence' which is why so many people think that LLMs are intelligent despite not being so.

The thing is, you can't train an LLM on math textbooks and expect it to understand math, because it isn't reading or comprehending anything. AI doesn't know that 2+2=4 because it's doing math in the background, it understands that when presented with the string 2+2=, statistically, the next character should be 4. It can construct a paragraph similar to a math textbook around that equation that can do a decent job of explaining the concept, but only through a statistical analysis of sentence structure and vocabulary choice.

It's why LLMs are so downright awful at legal work.

If 'AI' was actually intelligent, you should be able to feed it a few series of textbooks and all the case law since the US was founded, and it should be able to talk about legal precedent. But LLMs constantly hallucinate when trying to cite cases, because the LLM doesn't actually understand the information it's trained on. It just builds a statistical database of what legal writing looks like, and tries to mimic it. Same for code.

People think they're 'intelligent' because they seem like they're talking to us, and we've equated 'ability to talk' with 'ability to understand'. And until now, that's been a safe thing to assume.