Exactly. Fundamentally, I want my computer's computations to be deterministic, not probabilistic. And, I don't want the results to arbitrarily change because some company 1,500 miles away from me up-and-decided to "train some new model" or whatever it is they do.
A computer program should deliver reliable, consistent output if it is consistently given the same input. If I wanted inconsistency and unreliability, I'd ask a human to do it.
It's not arbitrary ... your precise and deterministic, multi-year, financial analysis needs to be corrected every so often for left-wing bias.
/s ffs
The problem with this is that it runs counter to AI company valuations.
Their valuations: AI all the things
Reality: AI the minimum number of steps, surrounded by guardrails and traditional deterministic automation
But AI companies won't be worth AI money if that reality persists.
> To make this even worse, it may even produce Y just enough times to make it seem reliable and then it is unleashed without supervision, running thousands or millions of times, wrecking havoc producing Z in a large number of places.
Reminds me of the famous Xerox scanning bug: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres...
To make this even worse, it may even produce Y just enough times to make it seem reliable and then it is unleashed without supervision, running thousands or millions of times, wrecking havoc producing Z in a large number of places.