> You don't even try to fix all the bugs or edge cases. You try to minimize the impact of failures while accepting that there will always be failures Yes but I

> You don't even try to fix all the bugs or edge cases. You try to minimize the impact of failures while accepting that there will always be failures Yes but I'll point you back at my original comment about correctness. I've never been on a team that shipped code we knew would do the wrong thing. I ship code with known failure points all the time. But when the code runs to completion, I'm pretty darn sure it's doing the correct thing and we try very, very hard to make sure of that. With AI I am seeing that they can't discern between issues of correctness and issues of failure or availability. It's just like 95% success across all of those spectrums. > What is really dangerous is when the various software components get too fast and complex to understand or control and develop pathological feedback loops in situations that cause real trouble. Yea I agree, that's somewhat scary to think about.