People who are incompetent with computation think than AI can 'provide answers.' Basic computational theory starting with the halting problem tells anyone competent that this is a non-starter as a concept. Incompetent people believe that AI is somehow magically capable of coming up with answers that are either 'right' or 'wrong'. this is simply indicative of their fundamental lack of competence regarding computational theory.

Proving an AI can create information borders ridiculously close to the fundamental halting problem. Any information produced by AI needs to be parsed and curated both in input and output, by a human who can determine if the information provided is feasible. Trusting an AI provides any real answer is wrote incompetence with computation.

Disinformation is not inherently false; within it's functional axiomatic ontology it is a true incomplete solution. Having a computer produce a right-ish answer and analyzing that to produce better queries and refine the solution is one thing- Proving a computer that can produce the right answer from the get go borders on the fucking halting problem. Everything coming out of the AI is 'disinformation', it is only by synthesizing its analysis with recorded data that one can produce not-disinformation.

If you cannot comprehend that, you are not competent to write sensationalist nonsense like this crap. Anyone who expects anything else will automagically provide the answer pro or con is doomed to failure because they lack the competence to understand what it is AIs provide.

Thank you for sharing your experience of the site; Mastery is running out of ways of making mistakes, the true and best masters learn from others' mistakes. The St. Francis Dam was a wonderful theory. Engineering is the joke; what is the difference between theory and practice? well in theory nothing; now prove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam The investigation section cites multiple contradictory investigations and the reasons for some of their bias (This all happened in the run up to the Hoover Dam and the feds were watching closely) but one of the later investigations points the finger at saturation and deformation in the east bank as a potential triggering fault. The fact both abutments failed while the center section stood is pretty phenomenal really, and suggests that neither abutment stood on a competent foundation; iirc the schist failed the western abutment (that and the talc), and the gypsum and clay deposits failed the eastern abutment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam references to gypsum begin five paragraphs down in planning and design, noted on the eastern abutment. Then more in the discussions of the various failure modes as one of the investigations faulted upthrust on the eastern abutment. The western abutment is also listed as having veins of talc which is just as bad if not worse.

I mean, they built a dam on gypsum deposits; which utterly proved that man never deserved a career in the first place.

edit: upon reading more, in the words of the real life 'villain' of this story; "Whether it is good or bad, don't blame anyone else, you just fasten it on me. If there was an error in human judgment, I was the human, I won't try to fasten it on anyone else."

Mastery is running out of ways of fucking shit up, and there is a deep honor in admitting grievous fault. This story is complicated.

Fault zone? yeah... that and fucking gypsum deposits!?! I mean... duh?

(For non construction people, Gypsum is a common material in modern construction. We know it as "drywall" for a reason as it is highly soluble in water- a nonstarter in a dam foundation.)