The video has many inaccuracies.
While the gist of it is correct, and physical OSI layers separation is indeed better for control (there is a valid reasons for "hardware" firewalls to exist), a lot of what she says is vastly extrapolated at best, or arguably wrong at worst.
And then, yes, regardless of the content, I'm pretty sure YouTube videos will be downvoted here.
OK I'm officially too tired to actually contribute to Lemmy. I'll be on my way... ๐ญ
I don't see how a repair that causes the nose of a plane to "fall off" would not be considered a "bigger repair"...
I'm not saying that Boeing would be involved in the replacement of a tire from the landing gear. But something major enough to make the actual nose of the plane to literally fall off? That sounds important enough to me.
The thing is, intelligence is the capacity to create information that can be separately verified.
For this you need two abilities:
If you get the first without the second, you end up in a case we call "insanity", and if you have the second without the first, you are merely a computer.
Animals, for example, often have exemplary intuition, but very limited rationalization (which happens mostly empirically, not through deduction), and if they were humans, most would be "bat shit crazy".
My point is that computers have had the ability to rationalize since day one. But they haven't had the ability to generate new data, ever. Which is a requirement for intuition. In fact, this is absolutely true of random generators too, for the very same reasons. And the exact same way that we have pseudorandom generators, in my view, LLMs are pseudointuitive. That is, close enough to the real thing to fool most humans, but distinctively different to a formal system.
As of right now, we have successfully created a technology that creates pseudointuitive data out of seemingly unrelated, real life, actually intuitive data. We still need to find a way to reliably apply rationalization to that data.
And until then, it is utterly important that we do not conflate our premature use of that technology with "the inability of computers to produce accurate results".
The real reason is that OVH put the backups right next to the systems, so when the latter went up in flames, the former also did.
But yes, that, too.
if you are at the receiving end of a mistake made my either a classic algorithm or an machine learning algorithm, then you probably won't care whether it was the computer or the programmer making the mistake
I'm absolutely expecting corporations to get away with the argument that "they cannot be blamed for the outcome of a system that they neither control nor understand, and that is shown to work in X% of cases". Or at least to spend billions trying to.
And in case you think traceability doesn't matter anyway, think again.
IMHO it's crucial we defend the "computers don't make mistakes" fact for two reasons:
Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won't waste my time listing here.
The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.
And you don't strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other's time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?
I thought that there were specific "critical" operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing's Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I'm discovering this field, so I don't know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that's why I'm asking, and not stating.
However, if one doesn't know more than me, stating isn't more correct.
We spent decades on educating people that "computers don't make mistakes" and now you want them to accept that they do?
We filled them with shit, that's what. We don't even know how that shit works, anymore.
Let's be honest here.
Isn't Boeing QA supposed to inspect the plane and sign it off after maintenance?
Also, not even correct... Apparently, VPNs are magical solutions that cannot spy on your traffic, while using the hotspot of someone you know, and can ask questions to, is potentially exposing you to "malicious" operators; and also cloudflare is somehow "trustworthy"... ๐ฎโ๐จ
Edit: I checked the company behind that quiz website, and they are quite obviously marketing and UI oriented, so with that in mind, the quality of the quiz and of the offered "advice" is less surprising. I know that "privacy" and "security" are pretty trendy those days, but pretending to offer a training when you don't have the knowledge yourself is doing more harm than good... I wish they would humble themselves, take a step back, and reconsider.