It’s technically there. Just ignored.

To be fair, there isn’t much good in US history.

It’s not hypocritical. Because you use AI to code, you know how easy it is to just let the AI do it’s thing and not check it’s work. It’s almost like a sirens song. So you know the odds that a library that was coded with AI probably wasn’t checked by a human. That’s just called experience.

For the dodging, the faster something goes, usually the easier it is to dodge because it can’t change direction as fast. Like a bullfighter stepping aside to let the bull run through the red cape. But I guess the target can’t change it’s position very fast, and would have a hard time timing the move against something coming that fast.

And for the third jet. How long do you think it would be between the first missle launch and the third? Like how much time did he theoretically have to react. I assume alarms would have gone off in the cockpit of all three when the first missle launched.

So when you say short range… are we talking dogfight range?
Just seems like one jet taking out 3 should be harder. But if the speculation were to be true, I guees they could have willingly let him get behind them and stayed in formation or something. Do those jets even have the programming to fire at three targets simultaneously? I assumed nowadays dodging air to air missles wasn’t too hard if you knew it was coming. The high speeds on both the plane and missle should make it easier to avoid them meeting if that’s your goal.

What is the story on those planes. Are they really saying one f18 shot down 3 f15s before noticing they were US jets? Would have to be long range missles I assume, but can they carry that many?

You said the answer is no AI.
And I want AI to do the non-thinking mundane crap while I do the thinking and directing. I don’t need to spend time wrestling with an sql query to produce a report the boss “wants”. I can tell AI to do that if it has the access it needs. Eventually the boss can tell AI to do it him/herself, so I can solve the real problems.

I didn’t say that you “needed” it. I said it was good for that. It’s a simple task that is easily verifiable and unlikely to go astray due to hallucinations.

So do we really think Iran had sub killing capabilities in that area so far from home? It does say determined in good faith. You could argue that the captain’s superiors may know something he doesn’t, but cna you argue in good faith that they would withhold information about a threat to his sub in the area? Good faith would mean just claiming there might have been doesn’t count.

I was more going for the split personalities concept. The same person can say they will kill you if you touch their daughter, but then sit down with their buddies and a beer and relive how heroic they were that one time with mary joe when they got caught and her father peppered the tailgate of his truck as he sped away. Pretty sure there are popular songs about the later. So it’s okay if they do it, but not if someone does it to them and theirs.

Cause it wasn’t “their” daughters. Remember, those same guys would fuck any other man’s daughter and expect it to be okay. They lack the mental skills to understand another person’s perspective.

So I wasn’t talking about the strike as much as not aiding the sailors. Sinking the boat, while reprehensible, would be a hard order to defy. Rescuing the sailors until other help arrived though. That would be reasonable to do, even if ordered not to. Leaning on the Geneva convention as support may not save a person. But it would still be the honorable thing to do.

The days of stack exchange and such are numbered. Web searches turn up less and less hits that help you solve problems and learn. It won’t be long before AIs replace old school web searches. Software projects will stop writing documentation, when instead and ai can just read the code. The way we learned things is dieing. I don’t know how the juniors will get to be seniors in 5 to 10 years. But following th AI instructions to test out it’s theories isn’t going to work for the vast majority.

I do in fact. Recently I have dodge the night time pages, but a few years ago I was up plenty of time in the night debugging issues. In many of those cases an AI would have been very helpful. Developers do far stupider things because they are sure they won’t break anything. But most of the pages were the result of not enough time spent to make the systems resilient. I dodged the pager currently because as a startup we had so few customers, we couldn’t afford to hire enough people to have a rotation. So I was sortof on call. Like the boss had my number, and if needed he would call it. But it never came to that, partly by luck, and partly because I know how to make things resilient. With the low load, resilient isn’t as hard.

Good luck with that. Most search engines use AI now. Not only where you see it, but in finding the content to make it searchable. AI is here to stay. There are things it is good at, and things it isn’t. Learn what they are, and use it where it makes sense. Or stuck your head in the sand and see how that works put.

Someone created that database. And all those other parts of the infra you use. AI is pretty good for that. But you have it turn on deletion protection, and set up a system that requires another person to approve turning it off. Or you can give it access at creation time, but remember to turn that access off when it is finished being verified.

I did say “and guardrails to stop a single point of failure.” A cicd pipeline itslef doesn’t protect you if it can change that too. You need the same kind of guardrails that would allow a junior dev to f things up. Require multiple people to sign off. Turn on deletion protection… those sorts of things. I work in infra, so I often have direct access to production. More than I should. But not all companies can afford to build out all the tools needed so that I don’t need production access.

Have you met software. Nearly all of it is a cautionary tale. Even before AI. So this is just business as usual for the software industry.

Wrong answer. If you don’t give them access, the alternative (ruling out not using AI because leadership will never go for that) is to hire high school kids to take a task from a manager, ask the ai to do it, then do what the AI says repeatedly to iterate to the solution. The problem with that alt is that it is no better than giving the ai access, and it leaves you with no senior tech people. Instead, you give it access, but only give senior tech people access to the AI. Ones who would know to tell the AI to have a backup of the database, one designed to not let you delete it without multiple people signing off.

Senior tech people aren’t going to spend thier time trying things an AI needs tried to find the solution. So if you don’t give it access, they won’t use it, and eventually they will all be gone. Then you are even further up shit creek than you are now.

The answer overall, is smarter people talking to the AI, and guardrails to stop a single point of failure. The later is nothing new.

The article references the geneva convention as the document that requires rescuing the sailors. So that is where that part comes from. It is of cpurse unlikely to be as simply worded as that. So lets agree it may not be strictly speaking illegal. However, illegal is whatever the prosecutor decides to prosecute for and that the judge agrees is illegal. In some cases a jury too.

But let’s put that aside. My goal was to identify the person who was the last person to reasonably expect to reject the order. In this case the captain of the sub. Name and shame. Give people in that position in the future at least some reason to pause and think before doing such things. Just following orders doesn’t cut it at that level. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a moral one. We need to shine a light on those people, let them know we know what they did. Make them live with that.