This sounds like a right-wing conspiracy theory. Are you saying that, in order to hire more black people, the FAA deliberately created a test only black people could pass? Do you have any evidence of this assertion?
Note: SideburnsOfDoom looks into the claim below and says, “In summary, spending 5 minutes digging into it gives every impression of it being culture war nonsense.”
The only domain I recognize is Newsweek, and given the nature of astroturfing, I’m not going to trust domains I don’t recognize.
All the Newsweek article says is that a lawsuit was filed. It doesn’t support GP’s claim that the FAA made “an impossible test, and gave black people the answers.” A lawsuit isn’t evidence of wrongdoing; it’s only evidence of an accusation of wrongdoing.
Looking at the front page of 2 of those domains ( tracingwoodgrains, blockedandreported ) they are ... ah .. not exactly impartial. Sample headlines: "How Wikipedia Whitewashes Mao - The Anatomy of Ideological Capture" and "The Politics of Misery - Why are young liberals so depressed".
The simpleflying link reports merely that a lawsuit was filed. It gives the name of the person filing the lawsuit as this character: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Laxalt who is also ... not exactly impartial, seeing as he "was the Republican party nominee for governor of Nevada in the 2018 election". And as other searches suggest, no stranger to frivolous litigation or false claims.
In summary, spending 5 minutes digging into it gives every impression of it being confected culture war nonsense.
"The lawsuit doesn’t allege incompetent controllers were hired instead of CTI graduates. Instead, it states that the CTI graduates weren’t given the opportunity to demonstrate their competency."
It sounds like they hired different people, rather than fewer.
Not a pilot or a controller, just a nerd. My take from reading about it was that a large number of high performing potential ATC controllers who had followed the traditional pipeline were ditched. Ofc it's possible they hired exactly as many ppl as they would have otherwise, but in any job with a long lead time for training, a sudden change in the pipeline is going to cause ripples further on for years to come. Maybe the ppl they did hire had a higher attrition rate so that while they had the same # of ppl in the short term, in the long term, they faced shortages. Maybe some % of those they did hire required some % of extra supervision or training. Ofc not insurmountable or fatal, it just means extra pressure that will exert itself in some fashion for years to come after the initial disruption. I have no idea of last night's incident could be considered downstream of the testing change, I was just responding to the allegation that it was a conspiracy theory, however I also don't think it's implausible that it contributed to it in some indirect way.
Maybe the ppl they hired had a lower attrition rate! Maybe the people hired required less supervision and training than the CTI graduates would have! Maybe this had rippling effects on increasing their hiring pipeline as people of color were more likely to see opportunities here.
Your comment presuming it was at best neutral, and any likely change was for the worse is exactly what racism looks like.
Those rollouts are seeing massive cutbacks from what I've read, as half the country is straight up banning new solar. Good luck ever getting that off the books.
I don't think it will be that hard. Banning solar is a feel good thing now that doesn't affect many people - but that means when the next election is gone it won't be opposed when lobbyists (and greens) try to roll it back. Of course each state is different, so some it will take more than a few elections. In some states solar is already widespread enough that you can't ban it because too many people already have it and know enough about it to tell their friends. Those friends who live in other states will start to ask why they don't.
Remember you need to keep the 20 year plan in mind. If you only look to the end of 2026 things are hopeless, but look to 2050 (and compare to 2000) and things look much better.
As I said there, it's inherently something the LLM can't do, at least not without lots of engineering. So I'm assuming you're talking about "as a human" here.
Some of it is just trial and error. You notice it makes an incorrect assumption, it takes longer to find something than it should, and so on. Some of that can be predicted, simply by you knowing the codebase. If you sat down with a new hire to walk them through it and get them up to speed, what would you tell them? It'd be a waste of time to tell them about things they can easily figure out on their own within a minute by looking at filenames and so on. It's the low effort thing to do, but it also achieves nothing.
For example, "A's B component has a default C which should be overridden unless desired". If A is an internal library then you could just fix that if it goes against the LLM's common assumptions, but maybe it's an external dependency and it's not worth it.
Or maybe you're building a game, and there are a few core mechanics that are relevant to much of the logic. Then you can likely explain in a few sentences what would otherwise need hundreds of lines of code read across multiple files. So you put that in an AGENTS.MD file in a relevant folder so it gets autoloaded when touching any of that code.
That reaction has happened with every model release for the past few years. Maybe they aren’t the same people, but it’s always “old model was terrible, new model gets it right” then “new model was terrible, newer model gets it right,” ad infinitum.
A large proportion of my professional network were in the "AI for code generatin might just be a fad" camp pre Opus 4.5 (and the Codex/Gemini models that came out shortly after that), and now almost everyone seems to think that AI will have at least some place in professional development environments on an ongoing basis.
I've recently given it a go myself, and it certainly doesn't get it right all the time. But I was able to generate AI-assisted code that met my quality standards at roughly the same speed as coding it by hand.
FWIW I am definitely someone who uses AI. I have been using it for a few years now. There's no question that models have improved. I'd say the biggest leap was around the ChatGPT 3.5 -> 4.0, which radically reduced hallucination problems. The big issue of "it just made up a module that doesn't exist" more or less went away at that point. This was the big leap from "spits out text that might help you" to "can produce value".
Since then it has been incremental. I would say the big win has been that models degrade more slowly as context grows. This means, especially for heavily vibecoded-from-scratch projects, that you hit the "I don't even know wtf this is anymore" wall way later, maybe never if you're steering things properly.
I think because you can avoid hitting that wall for longer, people see this as radically different. It's debatable whether that's true or not. But in terms of just what the model does, like how it responds to prompts, I genuinely think it is only marginally better. And again, I think benchmarks confirm this, and I quite like Fodor's analysis on benchmarking here[0].
I use these models daily and I try new models out. I think that people over emphasize "model did something different" or "it got it right" when they switch over to a new model as "this is radically better", which I believe is simply a result of cognitive bias / poor measurement.
GP said there is no rule yet, so the answer is “today, yes.” If you’re asking about the future, the answer is “to be determined.” But I think you knew that.
Pardon my ignorance, what is GP? If you have other sources please share, I only read this article, which bluntly states "Your current vehicle stays surveillance-free, but shopping for a 2027 model means accepting this digital copilot.".
GP=Grandparent.. the comment above the comment on yours.. but there is none.. so I guess we can assume article? There are better ways to phrase like "the article" or even "OP" (Original Poster - assuming poster & author are the same). This isn't a reputable domain though, so probably time to move on.
‘US District Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg wrote in the new opinion that a “mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning.”’
Unless you mean it’s sad that we’re in this position to begin with, in which case I agree, but that ship sailed the moment people chose to re-elect Trump. (And arguably, when Democrats chose to stay home rather than vote for Hillary, just because they were pissed about Bernie. A tragedy of letting perfect be the enemy of good that Democratic voters are all too prone to.)
reply