AI isn't like that. Literal AI experts admit that they don't really understand what's going on which is horrifying to say the least.
You should really try it. I've spend the last couple weeks fiddling around with Stable Diffusion. If you feed the same stuff into it you get the same stuff out, every single time. It is deterministic, like every other computer program.
As far as not understanding what's going on, why is that horrifying? Is it a requirement that you understand intimately the inner workings of a tool in order to use it? Should people not have used horses as draft animals without a deep understanding of equine biology and psychology? Should they not have used metals without understanding metallurgy? Chemicals without understanding chemistry? You'll find that history is an endless list of people using things before they completely understand them - partly because that's how you get an understanding and partly because it just doesn't matter most of the time.
Not understanding how a tool works is a reason to take care when using it, but calling it "horrifying" is just hyperbole.a
Even "don't really understand" is a bit misleading, we know how these systems work in the general sense. They were designed by humans to work in exactly the way that they do, they didn't happen by accident. It's mathematically quite complicated and very clever, but the concept of how they operate is not terribly hard to understand.
It can be difficult or basically impossible to nail down exactly why the program makes certain specific choices sometimes because of the complex and interdependent nature of how they're trained and the complete inability of the human brain to interface with that amount of data. But this isn't unique, in things like chemical manufacturing there are processes where the general principles can be well understood but tracking down the exact causes of specific (usually undesirable) outcomes is near impossible because you can't sit there watching individual molecules. Is that horrifying?
But people seem to want to take this in a direction that literally removes the decision making from the person which from my perspective means the person isn't doing anything worth their money.
So don't pay someone to do that job and just use the AI then. Some places are already doing that, with a range of outcomes depending on the specific job application. I don't know about you, but I've met plenty of people who aren't worth the money that they were being paid to "do" their jobs. As well as many people who were being wildly underpaid for the amount of work and value that they were producing.
Various forms of automation have already rendered highly educated and skilled humans to nothing but managers but if we remove the management aspect then what are we, secretaries? Even less than that? And we'll get paid approrpriately I'm sure.
You haven't actually used these things yet, have you? Saying that they don't require management is wildly overstating their capability.
Management is what is still required, what is being automated is the low level human pumping out a random document to then have their manager read over it. AI is not a tool that can simply be trusted to produce perfect work unsupervised any more than a low level employee can. But it can do a lot of what a low level clerical or artistic employee can currently do, provided that there is appropriate direction and oversight. From a manager, or a higher level employee.
Maybe put down the pitchfork and try using some of these tools to do actual work. You'll find that they're both incredibly capable in some areas, and incredibly poor in others. You know, like any tool. That will improve with time, and it wouldn't surprise me if we get to the point one day where AI is trusted to write stuff like boilerplate documents without supervision. But we're totally not there, or even that close.
But you let me know when you'd like AI to operate the next flight you're on so I can get up and make me a coffee. It gets boring sitting up there watching the pretty colors go by.
Come on man, you're better than this. Keep your strawmen at home.
Now you're really conflating definitions. The programming in airplanes is no more "intelligent" than a Texas Instruments calculator.
By your logic every computer in the world is no more intelligent than a TI calculator. I think you're being disingenuous with this, flight control software is highly complex with significant potential for interdependencies and unforeseen conflicts or interactions.
