> Many enterprises are currently exploring to see if they can invite developers to leverage AI tools—like they leveraged the compiler—to be more productive. To operate on a higher plane of agency, collaborating on what we should be building and not just technical execution.

The thing is, developers have been hired to automate process, and as for any professional doing a good job, that means the output should perform reliably. But now they are forcing us to use a tools that everyone knows is not reliable, but the onus is still on us to keep the same reliability. So do you see why we are not thrilled?

It’s like providing a faulty piano (that shuffles the notes when a key is pressed) and expecting a good rendition of the Moonlight Sonata.

Or a crane that will stall and drop its load randomly. It would have been sent to the scrapyard on the first day.

> "Or a crane that will stall and drop its load randomly. It would have been sent to the scrapyard on the first day."

The only reason you have the concept that engines can "stall" is because people have bought engines that can stall by the hundreds of millions, instead of the earliest people refusing to buy them at all and all waiting for the perfect engine.

Container ships can sink with all the containers lost at sea. Still used.

Steam train engines could explode, derailing the train and killing some passengers and employees. Still used.

Buildings can collapse. Still used.

Pneumatic tyres can burst. Still used.

Here[1] is Tom Scott using a recreation walking crane from the 13th century, a technology going back to Roman times, which has no evidence that it ever had brakes on it historically. Look at that and tell me you think the rope never snappped, the wood never broke, the walker never tripped and the thing never unreeled the load back to the ground with the walker severely injured, because if it went wrong builders would refuse to use it? No chance.

Nothing functions like you're claiming; that's where we get the saying "don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough", as soon as stuff is better than not having it, people want to make use of it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk9v3m7Slv8

You forgot to address the random aspect of the failure cases.

Real world is chaotic, technology was always first about controlling, then improving said control. A lot of the risks in the situations you described have been brought down that the savings (time, money,…) are magnitude more than the cost of the failure.

I’m not asking for perfection, but something good enough that we can demonstrate the savings outweigh the costs. So far there’s none. In fact, we are increasing it. And fast.

> But now they are forcing us to use a tools that everyone knows is not reliable, but the onus is still on us to keep the same reliability. So do you see why we are not thrilled?

Why generalizing your own experience on other's?