They ignored it because they had so many other alarms. This is a general problem of an ideal scenario to present all information, and the crew should figure out the exact problem and solve it. The real world creates information overload in a stressful situation and the crew cannot process the correct information. After AF447, there was more training in this exact scenario and emphasis on which alarms to prioritize.

Why keep the name? It would be more spiteful to name it the Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton Golf Course.

No, the plane warned of stall many times. The problem was the plane issued many, many other alarms. It is surmised they were just overwhelmed by the number and failed to prioritize which alarm to correct.

Also Airbus only recommended replacement on the 320. AF447 was a 330 but used the same pitot tubes.

A contributing factor was the plane was giving contradicting speed readings and alarms. And there were a lot of alarms. The flight was at night during a storm so the pilots had few visual clues about how fast they were moving. Yes the pilots should have heeded the stall warning over the other alarms, but it was not as simple as the crew just ignoring the only alarm. After this accident, the scenario of contradictory alarms was added to pilot training.

The pitot tubes were known by both Airbus and Air France to fail due to icing. Airbus issued recommendations to replace them on the Airbus 320 not the 330 which was the model AF447 used. The 330 used the same pitot tubes.

Aviation experts have raised concerns about the over reliance on computers by younger pilots. The pilot that was flying the plane (PF) had the least amount of experience but was also the youngest of the pilots. He would have spent the less amount of time manually flying a plane. The older pilots would have manually flown planes more over their careers as computer controls were not as sophisticated as they are now.

The root cause of the crash was the pitot tubes icing during certain flight conditions that caused erratic speed readings. This lead to the conflicting warnings and alarms that led to the crash. Airbus was concerned enough to issue recommendations to replace that model of pitot tube for their Airbus 320 planes; however, AF447 was an Airbus 330 which used the same pitot tubes. Neither Airbus nor Air France felt it was a priority to replace the pitot tubes.

I am waiting for the paper to be thoroughly reviewed before I would declare that the model proved anything. Andrew Wiles made a mistake in his first attempt proving Fermat's Last Theorem where he relied on logic that had not been proven previously. It was a fundamental problem where he had to rework his proof around that flaw.

Do these Amazon podcasts not have ads? I would imagine Amazon would stuff in as many ads as they could even though Alexa+ is a subscription. It is $99 per year but itself or free bundled with Amazon Prime. But if we use Amazon Prime as an example, it used be exclusively ad-free content. Now some content have ads. With AI ads could be generated and put into the podcast with little effort. A podcast about cars could slip in ads sponsored by Ford.

There is no ban on using AI; the sanctions are for not checking the work. If the lawyers did that, they would not have been sanctioned. However you have not provided any evidence that the models hallucinate less. Your only argument is those models were "ancient" and newer models are more advanced. More advanced does not mean they no longer hallucinate. That is your only "evidence"; newer == no errors.

They need AI because it is one more thing they can grift—I mean sell. Just like SpaceX didn’t need $131M worth of Cybertruck. Musk however could not have it appear that the Cybertruck was a disaster. Technically he sold a lot of them . . . to other companies that he controls.

And there has been detailed documented evidence that these models no longer hallucinate? Or is the current attitude that improvements must have been made; therefore, everything is fine. Or do new cases come up every day? Bear in mind, new cases are coming up even after multiple courts have sanctioned lawyers. Lawyers are not heeding those warnings and not checking their work.

The problem is that it seems to work in some cases. For example, a few lawyers have been sanctioned for using AI to create briefs. On the surface, the briefs seemed fine but the cases cited did not exist or was not related to the case.