You're confusing the task with the mechanism. Classic autoconplete uses statistical methods, often using some variant of a Bayesian algorithm. The task is to predict the next word, the method is statistics.
But if I asked *you* to predict the next word in a sentence, you would not be using a simple statistical method. Neither is the AI. It doesn't have the breadth of multi domain training data that your neutral network has, so it doesn't really think like a human does, but the way it functions is much closer to your brain than it is to a classical autoconplete.
It's hard to stress enough how profound that difference is.
If you can't trust if for simple things like that, it's then a QC nightmare when you try to trust it for important code or design
A thought just occurred to me... could Microsoft relying more and more on AI-generated code explain some of the increasing enshittification of Windows? And Microsoft execs asking AI to tell them what new 'features' to add to Windows account for most of the rest?
Microsoft: "Here's our crappiest idea, hosted by Clippy!"
Crappiest mascot, crappiest idea, and crappiest investment: MSFT
Short MSFT
Why not demand 2,000% or 100,000%?
These are just as likely as demanding 30%
Base...Base.
Base.
All Your Base...Are Belong to Us.
Exceptions prove the rule, and wreck the budget. -- Miller