What a beautiful strawman you've built.

It doesn't sound like you know much about or work on cars. You've dunning-kruger'd your way into demonstrating that.

There have been increasingly more updates for vehicles for powertrain and safety systems for years and it accelerated with connected services because they can now be pushed without bring a car into a dealership. It's very clear to everyone working in and around modern cars and has been confirmed by automotive sofware engineers that this is intentional and they are simply doing the bay area "we'll test it in prod and send otu updates" thing.

Thanks for demonstrating your vast ignorance on the topic though, it's such typical slashdot.

The blame for this falls squarely on the politics surrounding education fads. We abandon the boring things that work in favor for the new exciting crap that doesn't. And it's not because anyone really thinks it works, but because there are billions behind the new crap.

Parental apathy factors into this as well, no doubts.

We know what works, so ask yourself why we aren't using it.

So do you or do you not understand that allowing tons of obscure code to be loaded dynamically (hint: modules) that you certainly don't need or want is a security risk? Meaning TFA solution, which addresses modeules, is a good methodology for many systems, especially servers?

Now I know this sounds crazy, but stick with me for a moment: How about we require car manufacturers to deliver finished products to customers? And how about we also require them to provide meaninful service and repair data along with the vehicles? No more connected services unless they are non-essential to the car and trivially switched off, removed or replaceable. So that means no more repeated software updates will be required.

This is comedy, right?

That is an incredibly simple problem domain. It's search engine level, not "AI" or AI.

Stop falling for hype.

I think you're thinking about the wrong decade. I have seen little of consequences or shame in the last 10 years.

Actually, at the extreme scales, which is the total volume of the observable universe, the universe is quite homogeneous. As I recall, to the order of 1-in-10000 variance. This is why Inflationary cosmology was developed, to explain the distinct lack of lumpiness in the universe, which is what we would expect if the Big Bang alone were responsible.

Yeah, I'm gonna guess it's a lot more than double. My company's enterprise agreement with MS has Claude Opus 4.7 now at 15x token consumption. I bet that's approaching what it actually costs but still not quite it.

When has legality of actions stopped this administration in the past, specifically on creation of unpopular, protectionist (very communist market control) policies?

That's never how this works out. Water is cheaper than electricity for cooling so the more water you use the less you spend, whether that's literally just dumping water back into the sanitary sewer system or through evaporative chillers. In nearly every circumstance these facilities are doing the calculations to figure out which is cheapest and what they can get away with.

Trusing what comes out of Blackstone publicity persons mouth is painfully naieve in any context, bur especially so in light of the history of how these facilities operate.

Based on my analysis of their needs and what AI can deliver. I agree that it's management's job to increase efficiency and output, but change for change's sake is never good. For instance, in the examples above I *knew* what AI would deliver. I told them, in no uncertain terms, what product they'd receive. They still made the decision to push ahead ( and I'm more than willing to cash that check ). I can see, objectively and by any metric, that what was delivered is a worse customer experience than what they had before.

However, because it's "AI", that makes it acceptable. The buzzword has effectively disabled the rational and critical thinking parts of this management's teams brains. Of course I have seen this before ( First rule of IT: Vendors lie, Second rule of IT: Managers believe them ), but to this extent? Especially in smaller businesses, where margins are tighter. For what they're paying for this AI solution ( ha, "solution" ), they could afford to hire another staff member; another person on the phones, and far more capable than AI in delivering the ultimate product ( caring for the patient ).

Mind you; I pointed all this out to them. They know the math, but they are so...enamored with AI that it doesn't mean anything to them. Meanwhile, patients and staff hate it.

I'm sure there's AI use cases out there which deliver a decent ROI. What I'm seeing in the field, however, is management hysteria for the latest thing at a scale I've never before experienced.

I shouldn't complain, it's paying extremely well, but I know this will all come crashing down at some point.

I think it's a LOT less than zero sum in favor of the market makers who are close enough to the house in this context that it's a difference without a distinction.

I've been through more than a few technology cycles, so while I don't necessary disagree with you, the scale of the disconnect between the worker bees and management is more significant than I ever remember.

It's becoming exceedingly difficult to dissuade management from AI courses of action, even when they make no sense or will end up delivering a substandard product for significantly higher cost.

For instance, I just had a client implement an AI auto-attendant for a medical office. Were they having difficulties answer the phone in a timely manner? No. Do they anticipate a staffing shortage that would cause such an issue? No. Will the auto-attendant be able to accomplish what a regular worker can? No. In fact, it can pretty much only answer the phone and find someone for the caller to talk to.

But by god, management had to have it. So, for an extra 2000 a month they get a middle man that delays delivering service to patients. Management loves it. Folks answering the calls hate it because the patients hate it.

Different office asked about AI curated music. Another client asked about replacing our network monitoring software with AI so their IT staff can stop working after hours. They both will end up getting their wish, and at least in the case of the network monitoring solution it's going to cause so many issues I'm having them sign a waiver before I implement; I won't be held responsible when the AI agent is rebooting servers randomly because it thinks they're offline.