It's great to help people understand that AI can be both surprisingly good and disappointing, and that testing is the only way to know, but it's impossible to t

It's great to help people understand that AI can be both surprisingly good and disappointing, and that testing is the only way to know, but it's impossible to test everything. That sets expectations. I think that means savvy customers will want details or control over testing, and savvy providers will focus on solutions they can validate, or where testing is included in the workflow (e.g., code), or where precision doesn't matter (text and meme generation). Knowing that in depth is gold for AI advocates. Otherwise, I don't think people really know or care about bugs or specifications or how AI breaks prior programmer models. But people will become very hostile and demand regulatory frenzies if AI screws things up (e.g., influencing elections or putting people out of work). Then no amount of sympathy or understanding will help the industry, which has steadily been growing its capability for evading regulation via liability disclaimers, statutory exceptions, arbitration clauses, pitting local/regional/national governments against each other, etc. To me that's the biggest risk: we won't get the benefits and generational investments will be lost in cleaning up after a few (even accidental) bad actors at scale.