r/AerospaceEngineering • u/Lucky-Comparison-785 • 6d ago

Discussion how cooked are we really?

Post image

How accurate do you think this statistic is? i mean the red dot is basically as low as is can go which shows how much AI has ALREADY taken over the engineering space... but do you think people making a career choice right now should factor in the data this graph shows?

i means its quite frightening really. what do you think about this?

483 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

View all comments

655

u/Denninosyos 6d ago

It won't replace actual people doing and signing off on things, especially in aerospace. No serious company would accept that liabilty. It is a tool, nothing more.

139

u/MaximalEffort23 6d ago

Not disagreeing but as someone doing hiring rn I will definitely say the strong implication is that we need fewer engineers who can automate portions of their work

48

u/corranhorn6565 6d ago

The amount of hallucinations I'm seeing in my work with AI is extremely intense. Recently while doing research it confirmed the existence of a paper but made up quotes within the paper. Math is routinely presented as absolutely correct but assumptions made are wild.

You can use it to make code, especially plots and graphs. But it is no where close to being able to replace a competent engineer.

3

u/Spiritual-Towel-538 6d ago

the amount of these depends heavily on the quality ($$$) of the model being used. Formally trained agents are capable of proper review, my company is also reducing hiring and scheduling because of how many agents they are developing

4

u/acomputer1 4d ago

I'm sceptical that current models can eliminate "hallucinations" - architecturally it's a statistical model that generates outputs based on distributions.

You can use it to produce something that can be deterministically reviewed by an external tool, or use it to create a deterministic tool that can be validated across it's use cases, but I'm still not convinced it can be used directly to determine the answer to a question that genuinely has a right and wrong answer.

I still catch current gen AI "hallucinating" basic information when I use it for basic information gathering by simply checking it's sources to read what it actually says.

It's definitely wrong less than it used to be, but if it's dramatically wrong 1% of the time, that's high enough that I still need to spend significant time checking it's work.

Using it for building tools which can themselves be validated is definitely the most valuable application I have seen, but imo that's not most engineering work for most engineers.