AI enables them to automate the generation of shitty code for broken systems even more efficiently
Comment on Microsoft Confirms Windows 11 Bug That Locks Users Out of the C: Drive
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I like how, once AI is invented, there is never a problem that isn’t AI related.
Microsoft made broken shit before AI, it isn’t like they suddenly lost that capability once AI was invented.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
*Microslop
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I use Linux exclusively, my family’s laptops are all Linux, I self-host, etc. I’m no Microsoft fanboy, so believe me when I tell you…
…that is a stupid name and anyone using it sound like a clown.
AI’s use in industry is destructive to knowledge workers, the massive dump of capital in the computer hardware markets have caused massive disruption in secondary markets and the coming market crash will affect everyone in the world. There are plenty of easy arguments to be made against using AI.
Going into a comment section and posting “Well, acktually, you mean MicroSLOP!” does none of that. It’s performative, not substantive.
pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
But there weren’t that many bugs.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That seems like an easy statement to prove. How many bugs were there before AI vs after?
I may be wrong, but I would guess that you haven’t seen any data to back up your statement and you’re basing it on your perception based on social media posts.
You see a lot of clickbait articles where the author highlights a specific patch note or vulnerability and tries to tie that to AI. They’re doing that to earn revenue because anti-AI posts get traffic… they’re not trying to objectively inform you about the rate of bugs in Microsoft’s products. Your perception is being skewed by selection bias.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I would guess that you haven’t seen any data to back up your statement and you’re basing it on your perception based on social media posts.
Well, that’s certainly what you’re doing at least.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You think I’m basing my perception based on a social media post? That’s very observant.
You’re right.
I am responding to a social media post and so my perception of that social media post is based on a social media post (specifically the one that I’m responding to).
The difference between my comment and their comment is that they present their statement as a fact and I indicate uncertainty.
I don’t know the person, I may be wrong and they may have the statistics to back up their fact claim. Since I didn’t know for sure I wrote:
I may be wrong, but I would guess
This indicates that I am not confident in my answer but it is the current top hypothesis among many.
I assume (<- see, indicating uncertainty) that they don’t have this data and are simply making it up.
As far as WHY they are making it up
Considering that social media is the top news source for most people. (Since this is a fact claim, here is a source: niemanlab.org/…/for-the-first-time-social-media-o…). If you don’t know about a person you have to assume an average person. An average person is more likely to receive their news from social media.
I don’t think it’s uncontroversial to say that AI is a divisive topic online and so guessing that this person’s perceptions are built on misinformation about AI posted on social media seems to be a pretty rational conclusion based on the facts that I have before me.
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 4 weeks ago
It’s more like the old adage but extended: “To err is human, to really foul things up you need a computer, but to make an unbelievable mess you need an AI.”
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That is certainly true and may very well be the case here.
It could also be the case that a human developer forgot to bounds check an array and iterated out of bounds, corrupting some important kernel variable. We won’t know unless we get a postmortem.