So, to really create something new that I care about, LLMs don't help much.

They are still useful for plenty of other tasks.

Successful socialism if you want.

The costs are covered by local taxes, to curb on individual vehicle use and reduce congestion. After some hiccups, some cities manage good economies of scale where everybody, including the environment, wins.

As for housing and food, while there the incentive structure is more fragile, at least, we have homeless shelters that are free, and once again, everybody wins: the costs are very low, and cities are far safer and cleaner.

After all, this has been Apple strategy since the 80's, and, even though there were some up's and down's, overall it's a success.

If I ever find some idle time, I'd like to make an agent that surfs the web under my identity and several fake ones, but randomly according to several fake personality traits I program. Then, after some testing and analysis of the generated patterns of crawl, release it as freeware to allow anyone to participate in the obfuscation of individuals' behaviors.

They navigate such complex decision spaces, full of compromises, tensions, political knots, that ultimately their important decisions are just made on gut feelings.

Replace the CEO with an LLM whose system prompt is carefully crafted and vetted by the board of directors, with some adequate digital twin of the company to project it's move, I'm sure it should maximize the interest of the shareholders much better.

Next up: apply the same recipe to government executive power. Couldn't be much worse than orange man.

Cache-awareness and structure discovery are 2 important tools of the engineer to optimize practical problems.

If we wanted a reliable measure of the difficulty of a problem instance, it should rely on a function of O(K(n)) where K is the kolmogorov complexity of the input.

Still your projection shows that both reference indicators and actual values are in the ballpark of the estimates I cited.

My (and Amalberti's) main point is that safety assessment is not just about minimizing the raw number of accidents, but involves tradeoffs between various concerns, including psychological perception and revenue. Otherwise, the safest airline would be the one that does not fly anyone.

Now, facing the growth of air travel, it was decided to raise this bar to 1 per billion hour. Not as an end by itself - this comes at very high cost and had a significant impact on travel prices. But because, with the growth of air travel, this would have implied one major accident per fortnight on average. And because those accident are more spectacular and relayed by media, civil aviation authorities feared this might raise angst and deter the public from air travel.

So, safety was enhanced, but mostly for marketing reasons.

It is a little known secret that plenty of defense systems are already set up to dispense of the human in the loop protocol before a fire action. For defense primarily, but also for attack once a target has been designated. I worked on protocols in the 90's, and this decision was already accepted.

It happens to be so effective that the military won't bulge on this.

Also, it is not much worse to have a decision system act autonomously for a kill system, if you consider that the alternative is a dumb system such as a landmine.

Btw: while there always is a "stop button" in these systems, don't be fooled. Those are meant to provide semblance of comfort and compliance to the designers of those systems, but are hardly effective in practice.

Just keep smooth talking everyone into cost reductions and make arbitrary decisions to make it feel like you're actually in charge.