All the technologies you listed behave deterministically, or at least predictably enough that we generally don’t have to worry about surprises from that abstraction layer. Technology does not just move on, practitioners need to actually find it practical beyond their next project that satisfies the shareholders.

Again, you’re discussing tools you haven’t actually used and you clearly have no clue how they work. If you had, then you would realize that agents can work against tests, which act as a contract they fill. I use these tools on daily basis and I have no idea what these surprises you’re talking about are. As a practitioner, I find these things plenty practical.

I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.

I’m not assuming anything. Either you have not used these tools seriously, or you’re intentionally lying here. Your description of how these tools work and their capabilities is at odds with reality. It’s dangerous to make shit up when talking to people who are well versed in a subject.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how your examples are deterministic while gAI is not.

I didn’t make any inaccurate comparisons. The whole deterministic LLM argument was just the straw man you were making. I’m merely pointing out your dishonesty here, if you choose to perceive it as a personal attack that’s on you.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt initially assuming you simply haven’t used these tools. Now, you’ve come back and emphatically stated that you have. Given that what you describe is not how these tools work, it’s very clear that you are being dishonest by your own admission. Now you’re just using sophistry to paper over that.