Comment by Joker_vD

> Yea, and what do you remember about that?

That it was a rather big PR disaster, and it cost Intel lots of money to recall the chips. Such things don't really happen with software; software is expected to have bugs, some of them maybe even catastrophic, but that's just the way the things are.

> because the remediation cost of a software defect is less than a hardware defect once shipped, people are not as worried about validation in most use cases. That's not inherently a mistake though, just intuitive cost-benefit assessment.

Yes, and also, the users are told to simply bear up with software bugs (and some low-priority ones sometimes never get fixed). So let's jump several levels of comments up:

   > > > People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output.

   > > Brute Force: if it doesn't work, you're just not using enough.

   > > What if they're right though?

   > It does not have to be brushed away as "brute force" necessarily. We can, and do, build more reliable systems out of less reliable components... Even without AI, you already have buggy compilers and buggy OSes and buggy libraries.

My problem with the last comment is that it at the same times both dismisses the software and AI's quality problem ("nah, we 'can' build reliable systems") and also acknowledges that it very noticeably exists and needs to be dealt with somehow! And really, "buy literal insurance"? Who even sells insurance against software bugs?