Winter Rant<p><strong>The Weekly: Being Obviously Wrong</strong></p><p>… <em>also in this issue: <a href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/2025/04/15/the-weekly-being-obviously-wrong/#life-is-for-living" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">life of legos and eggs</a>, a <a href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/2025/04/15/the-weekly-being-obviously-wrong/#crosspost" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">brief crosspost</a>, and a <a href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/2025/04/15/the-weekly-being-obviously-wrong/#ai-too-big" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">nagging question</a>.</em></p><p>Being obviously wrong, i.e., in a manner that is obvious and clear, can be a strength for automated systems. Because when a machine breaks — digital or mechanical — with a lot of sound and drama, it becomes easy to know two things: (a) that the machine is broken, and (b) a clue on where the trouble is. This in turn makes it easy to intervene manually and fix up the automation. We do not realize this but these machines are not an end to themselves, but exist to support human beings, and if they are not helping people, or cannot be helped by people … what’s the point?</p><p>Detecting when things are wrong is harder than it seems. In fact, a century or two ago, it took <a href="https://historycollection.com/buried-alive-common-victorian-era-doctors-used-10-methods-prevent/#:~:text=Doctors%20are%20also,the%20gold%20standard." rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">years of medical training to accurately decipher if a person was indeed dead</a>. But coming back to the land of the living, this century, and closer to my own area of rants and raves: tech.</p><p>The entire field of software testing has been obsessed with this basic problem of defining and checking correctness for the past fifty five years. Don’t get me wrong: we have made tremendous strides in testing complex code and ensuring that we ship code with high standards of quality. But if you asked anyone if we can automate away all that testing (or even a good chunk of it), they would spell out an inescapable reality: we rely on human software engineers and testers more than we want to admit when building robust and reliable software systems.</p><p>And a big part of driving reliability in software is knowing when it is wrong, i.e., when it breaks. Back in the good old days of 2022, doing this was relatively easy. Take a system served over the cloud, say Google Drive. If it stopped syncing your files, you would know, because you would not see the same file across your phone and laptop.</p><p>Fast forward to 2025, and we are befuddled with these large language models that are proliferating everywhere, while being wrong in ever so subtle ways. Using the output of a large language model, especially at work, without scrutinizing it … is recipe for disaster. I love thinking back to the lawyers who <a href="https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-fake-case-lawyers-d6ae9fa79d0542db9e1455397aef381c#:~:text=The%20chatbot%2C%20which,that%20didn’t%20exist." rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">trusted ChatGPT’s generated citations</a> in their legal filing, only to find that each citation was fabricated (i.e., fake) and invited fines from the judge in their case. ChatGPT was wrong. But it was wrong with so much subtlety that it fooled professional, educated, seasoned lawyers into believing in non-existent legal precedents.</p><p>I am not sure what we can do about this anymore given that these language-based AI systems are very much out of the bag. Nothing to do, except to expect these subtle mistakes, and be more mindful than ever. Manual work and error checking may never have mattered more, than they do today.</p><p>It is important to know how to work without a machine or algorithm, now more than ever.</p> <p><strong>Life is for Living: Eggs and Legos</strong></p><p><em>Instead of rushing through life, I find myself standing still more than I used to. It has allowed me to notice life around me. And when not intensely private, I capture it with my camera.</em></p><p><strong>Lego Locomotive</strong></p><p>Kid is getting better with his legos, and with his appreciation of trains and locomotives. I continue to be a proud dad 🤩. The pictures below are his lego imaginations of train engines 🚂.</p><p><strong>Eggs 🍳</strong></p><p>I am not exactly proud of the omelets I make. But I am at a point where I can manage to fold a neat looking omelet on to a plate. Its not much to brag about, but the wife walks away impressed — she is probably being nice to me. 🤣 Regardless, I captured some closeups of a neatly folded omelet I made recently.</p> <p><strong>Crosspost 🚏</strong></p><p><a href="https://sfnotes.page/2025/04/03/changes-notes-generated-by-ai-are-soulless/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Soulless AI in software engineering.</a> I wrote about some experiences recently around using AI when building software systems. It is in a different, nerdier blog I maintain that is focused on software engineering. Check it out if you are a nerd like me. Or check it out regardless. 🤓</p><p><a href="https://sfnotes.page/2025/04/03/changes-notes-generated-by-ai-are-soulless/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sfnotes.page/2025/04/03/changes-notes-generated-by-ai-are-soulless/</a></p> <p><strong>Weighing on me: AI too big to fail?</strong></p><p>This one has been on my mind for the last three months. No matter how I feel about it — and I feel a lot of things — it occurs to me that the changes in our lives, wrought about by advances in AI are for all practical purposes irreversible. AI certainly is poised to reshape how we work both in big ways and small. But regardless of how all of this shakes out in our day-to-day there is one inescapable reality about AI: its impact on the tech economy.</p><p>I like to think of myself as someone who cares about humanity, the primacy of refining our crafts, and generally everything that human beings have to offer. And even I cannot ignore the fact that the amount of money invested in AI (both research and tech) is so much that if this does not yield some form of return, then it might spell doom and gloom for a long time to come. I am frankly afraid that the global economy might break if nothing comes off the existing investments in AI. Yuck.</p><p>Very reluctantly, I am thinking about leaning in. It is probably a mistake. But this ship is sailing. And the best way to deal with this reality is to find the humanity in it all. Because for one thing — and I will write about this more in the weeks to come — I do not think that AI as it stands, or as it is being prophesied will amount to much without people involved. And for another thing (and this is more important) … what is all of this technology for if not for people?</p><p><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/ai/" target="_blank">#AI</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/automation/" target="_blank">#Automation</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/eggs/" target="_blank">#Eggs</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/food/" target="_blank">#Food</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/genai/" target="_blank">#GenAI</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/gpt/" target="_blank">#GPT</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/legos/" target="_blank">#Legos</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/llm/" target="_blank">#LLM</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://rant.vpalepu.com/tag/wrong/" target="_blank">#Wrong</a></p>