422
She won an exemption from using AI at her tech job. The Pope's remarks could fuel similar appeals.
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
422 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
85245 readers
4293 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
(The AI does not, in fact, understand it. The AI doesn't understand anything at all. It's a statistical text prediction machine.)
That is correct, but it's also kinda beside the point. A compiler doesn't "understand" anything either, it's just a program, but it's still very useful. So useful in fact that most programmers nowadays trust it unconditionally to the point where we say "a programmer doesn't need to understand the code the compiler outputs".
But AI is just really not trustworthy, and the question is whether they will ever be trustworthy enough that we can say "The programmer doesn't need to understand the code the AI outputs".
A compiler is at least consistent if all things remain constant. Ask AI the same thing a few times and you’ll get different answers. Ask tomorrow?…different.
Of course. That's why we trust it. My point was that a tool doesn't need to have "understanding" (whatever that exactly means) to be useful, it needs consistency.
The compiler doesn't understand. It converts, following strict rules. There's no "thinking" or "understanding" in the process. It's a pure one-to-one conversion. That makes it consistent. If I run the same code twice through the same compiler I will get the same output. It's an output that I can trust and thus using a compiler is helpful.
If an AI was able to consistently, dependably, provably convert my natural text input into a correct program, then I'd also be able to trust it.
The problem is that this is technically impossible, because the whole point of using natural text input is that I can use vague, unclear and incomplete language to describe what I want. With an ambiguous input there cannot be an unambiguous output.