Stupidity has none.

You can derail stupid towards something. Even de-stupid it. That does not work with motivated people, even less evil ones.

I totally get that face recognition is an issue for some. And that some tech may be of help with that.

But if said tech implies putting everyone at risk (because the privacy is not properly implemented in this tech, and because it is even obviously weaponised as it is today), it is a hard sell.

And you axiomize progress.

Although the question isn’t one against the other. It is whether progress justifies treating people as objects, as data providers without consent. That’s not a curious axiom, that’s the basis of all rights-based systems since 1948. Or 1785 (Kant). Or 1215 (Habeas Corpus). Or 1750 BCE (Hammurabi code).

And, a fundamental right does not need an existing harm to be justified into existence: it is a right as first principle.

If all you have is taking sides with what ought to be dismissed, or rather, discussed and controlled, rather than let alone wild at the expense of most people, that's a choice that is yours.

At some point, the regulatory/legal backlash will require hard personal responsibility (that is, jail consequences) for this to be taken seriously at the corporate and technical levels and so trust to be reinstated.

Kind of like selling hard won skills as some kind of gate keeping.

Improving the quality of life of people cannot be done at the expense of the basic social needs of everyone else.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

E-commerce succeeded, but not in the form Pets and WebVan proposed, and not in the timeline their investors needed.

The question is not: is it useful, but (as any investor asks): does this bet, at this valuation, deliver what it promises, in time? That's the audit we need.

When the bet distorts global semiconductor supply chains, displaces workers, and rides on mass IP infringement... skepticism looks more like due diligence than contrarianism.

But the inflation of expectations and investments in them because of GenAI, when this inflation bursts may impact everything and everyone.

Incidentally, each "wave" justifies massive investment in the same technology: GPUs, for transformations that do not materialise _at scale_.

That raises the questions: why? Who captures the value? Who bears the cost? Why are we always skipping the audit? What happens when the "GPU bubble" bursts?

QA perspective and focus is just different from the one of the team building the thing. It's precisely because of their detached perspective that they can do their work properly.

Who will then define, debate and hold standards/regulations/norms, then? and adherence to those standards, as well as the legal responsibility that comes with it?

What happens when a totally automated software is the main cause of the destruction of private property, or the death of even one single person?

Who is going to answer for these? (that is, pay, fix and possibly go to jail)

How are those legal consequences going to pressure the automated development industries to comply to safety/control rules?

Not even mentioning the potential regulatory/market and legal consequences if you don't.

One additional point of data about caring about exit interviews: I have been in a team where an excellent engineer left for a different company. He came back about one year later a more senior role, and was instrumental to the company success in the following years.

On the other hand, I do care about people that are knowledgeable of these details, specialized, and trust to handle them for me for a fee.

That’s true of banking, realting, health, security, building, manufacturing of everything I use (or almost). That doesn’t prevent me from vaguely understanding the principles and some bits. And that saved me a ton of time and worry. But for the few times one agent does not work up to his promises.

I am 49, I have dealt enough with try to do all by myself, and I do appreciate and rely onto middlemen way earlier now.

I've also met enough architects (or so called) in consulting, service companies as well as startups, from both a founder and a tech lead point of view, in the past 25 years not to entrust them too much with their hunches, long-term wise.

Especially because, from a sustainability point of view, saying "junior engineers are done for" is like saying "kids are done for": not that wise. Unless what you account/bet for is the drastic reduction/disappearance of humains (and then, a lot starts to make more sense).