I really don't think so, poor written human code IME is rarely overly complex, where as the AI code is almost always vastly over complex. Naturally complexity can be an issue because it leads to more surface area for failures and challenges to diagnose, but where I am REALLY seeing an issue is the complexity hiding an issue. Something that should normally fail or produce an error is covered up by something multiple layers deep in the code that returns an incorrect value instead of an error when something goes off the rails.

Low quality baiting content was a problem before but the barrier to entry has been significantly reduced and the.amount of content is growing quickly.

Realistically this happened due to high confidence with regard to the presence of a high value target. It's awful, but there was assuredly a calculus and the goal is less collateral damage over the long term. There wasn't just an oops missile or multi-year old intelligence.

OTOH attack the drone capacity would require undetermined strikes on logistical networks and downstream suppliers. It wouldn't be hard, but there would be far more civilian casualties and many of the strikes would be non-beneficial.

The casualty rate would not be high at all, though all casualties are significant. There would be some, but again this is why I said in a serious war, pilot casualties would be expected. It also would not be as if they need to hit the whole country at once. There would be fronts and lines and structured approach.

Right now the US is working around internal issues with the IRGC. The US doesn't even want to destroy all of Iran's stockpile or production facilities. They only want to destroy those which are in the possession of the IRGC factions actively engaging in combat. Even more pressing than destroying the drones is eliminating the particular IRGC faction heads that are responsible for attack. The US isn't conducting any sort of sweeping campaign at all, every attack has been precisely targeted to hit certain commanders. Even the ones making headlines for civilian casualties. It's just more palatable to let everyone assume you made a mistake than to come out and say, "We determined there would be less collateral damage over an extended horizon if we conduct this strike now."

Good lord no, AI generated code isn't remotely close to something even the most insane human would generate. And if someone did you would seriously have to question what was going through their head. Everything from naming conventions to the flow of logic is twisted and often non-sensical. Plus the commenting and verbosity of code is ridiculous.Claude constantly makes up new terms to describe things that leave you wondering what it's talking about. Yesterday Claude started referring to some sort of logic as "finger-splint".

In other words if Japan were in a position where they were willing to use drones to indiscriminately attack soft targets an F-35 would be about a trillion times more effective.

Datacenter construction jobs though are very very temporary and not really the kind of thing where we can keep building for no reason and then just tear down to rebuild again.

The reason we have so many "infrastructure" bills that are basically just build more roads is that there are so many temporary road construction jobs. If they don't keep building and those workers lose their jobs it's going to be a major crisis.