[ho_schi]

I’m rather sure *Airbus* will prefer a programmer which reads and writes reliable code.

The programmer which delivers useful products is probably hired by Microsoft? Or worse, Boeing. Or Toyota. Some NTSB people or Michael Barr are happy to tell you details about the number of dead people they created.

    Restart braking to brake because our code failed.

Or.

    One single sensor delivers wrong data. Let us put the trim down. DOWN! DOWN!

After that they blame the user. It wasn’t a pilot error, because the didn’t trained the pilots to immediately turn off MCAS. And it wasn’t a driver error, because they didn’t trained driver to lift the feet and start braking again.

    But I’m only programming a text viewer.

Which is used in a power plant to read the emergency manual, after an earthquake. You are responsible.

[class3shock]

For Airbus, Boeing, and others the cost of failure is disproportionately high. Just look at how you consider Boeing despite that 99.99...% of their software and hardware work flawlessly. They will be known for the 737 Max failure for decades.

When OpenAI tells someone that suicide isn't that bad, some bs supplement could be the best thing to treat their cancer, or does anything else that has a negative outcome, the consequences are basically zero. That is even though any single failure like that probably kills alot more people per year than Boeing.

It seems there is knowledge of this and the lack of responsibility placed on these companies so they act accordingly.

[mustyoshi]

But realistically, I just had 2 flights last month, checking what model of aircraft I was on didn't even cross my mind. I survived both flights btw.

[ghoblin]

There are only so many safety-first companies and products. The vast majority of the economy isn't optimizing for safety

[tshaddox]

Could it be that the only large safety-first companies are the ones forced by law (either proactively, or due to reliable legal accountability if things go wrong) to be safety-first?

[swiftcoder]

> There are only so many safety-first companies and products

There are only so many companies that think of themselves as safety-first. In practice, basically all companies work on things that should be safety-first.

Does your software store user data? Congrats, you are now on the hook for GDPR and a bunch of similar data handling regulations.

Does your software include a messaging component? You are now responsible for moderating abusive actors in your chat.

Does your software allow users to upload images? Now you are a potential distribution vector for CSAM.

And so on... safety isn't just for things which can cause immediate death and dismemberment

[eecc]

OT: it's not the first time I see this grammatical mistake: "didn’t trained". Is it some accepted regional variation?

[illichosky]

I think he is a non-native speaker, like me. I also do this mistake very often and 'didn't train' is a bit counter-intuitive - at least for me.

[cookiengineer]

I think that happens when as a German you're used to using the Plusquamperfekt which is a somewhat unique tense that's allowed to be used in all past tenses.

It allows you to not having to define the point in time and neither the frame of the timespan's points in time.

Some languages allow to use that type of tense and it's somewhat a language gap I suppose. I have no idea what other languages or proto languages allow that tense though, but I've seen some Slavic and maybe Finnish(?) natives use that tense in English, too.

Maybe someone more elaborate in these matters has better examples?

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plusquamperfekt

[ho_schi]

Thank you! I assume “didn’t train” is correct. Probably my favorite mistake! I like it when people point out mistakes, give me corrections, and explain why. The reason is crucial.

Maybe “hadn’t trained” is even better. Makes sense when ordering times. But I don’t trust LLMs an inch. It makes up options for git[1] and both GCC and CLANG are often immediately telling me that the LLM is lying.

Cookieengineer and illichosky are right.

[1] Considering that man pages exist, it shows how useless their harmful crawlers are.

[pembrook]

We're not talking about Airbus or centuries old commodified industrial companies. Airbus sells airplanes, not AI software tools.

But if you did build a core innovation in aerospace that went viral I'm sure Airbus would be interested in hiring you.

The salary would be 3K per month. And lunch coupons to buy a ham baguette.

[rafaelmn]

Airbus pays like shit probably. Just going off the stuff I've read about Boeing.

[shakow]

I can confirm, they do.