1756
we are safe
(discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1756 points (98.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
31687 readers
32 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Engineering is about trust. In all other and generally more formalized engineering disciplines, the actual job of an engineer is to provide confidence that something works. Software engineering may employ fewer people because the tools are better and make people much more productive, but until everyone else trusts the computer more, the job will exist.
If the world trusts AI over engineers then the fact that you don't have a job will be moot.
People don't have anywhere near enough knowledge of how things work to make their choices based on trust. People aren't getting on the subway because they trust the engineers did a good job; they're doing it because it's what they can afford and they need to get to work.
Similarly, people aren't using Reddit or Adobe or choosing their cars firmware based on trust. People choose what is affordable and convenient.
In civil engineering public works are certified by an engineer; its literally them saying if this fails i am at fault. The public is trusting the engineer to say its safe.
Yeah, people may not know that the subway is safe because of engineering practices, but if there was a major malfunction, potentially involving injuries or loss of life, every other day, they would know, and I'm sure they would think twice about using it.
What's being discussed here is the hiring of engineers rather than consumer choices. Hiring an engineer is absolutely an expression of trust. The business trusts that the engineer will be able to concretely realize abstract business goals, and that they will be able to troubleshoot any deviations.
AI writing code is one thing, but intuitively trusting that an AI will figure out what you want for you and keep things running is a long way off.
In my hometown there's two types of public transit: municipal and commercial. I was surprised to learn that a lot of folk, even the younger ones, only travel by former, even though the commercials are a lot faster, frequent and more comfortable. When asked why, the answer is the same: If anything happens on municipal transport - you can sue the transport company and even the city itself. If anything happens on a commercial line - there's only a migrant driver and "Individual Enterpreneur John Doe" with a few leased buses to his name. Trust definitely plays a factor here, but you're right that it's definitely not based on technical knowledge.
It's more thrust than trust.
Hmm. I've never thought about it that way. It took a long time for engineering to become that way IIRC - in the past anybody could build a bridge. The main obstacle to this, then, is that people might be a bit too risk-tolerant around AI at first. Hopefully this is where it ends up going, though.
Very interesting point. Probably the most pressing problem then is to find a way for the black box to be formally verified and the role of AI engineers shifts to keeping the CI\CD green.
As someone who works on the city side of development review, I can firmly say I'll trust a puppy alone with my dinner than a Civil Engineer.
Are civil engineers known to eat off people's plates?
Think they confused it with uncivil engineers