[probably_wrong]

Would you apply the same criteria to code instead of file formats? As in "my customer has given me this code for architecture X and I need it working on architecture Y"?

For those who answer "yes" to the above I'd encourage them to read the story of the Therac-25 [1], a machine where hardware mechanisms in model A where replaced by software mechanisms in model B leading to a race condition that would dose patients with massive doses of radiation.

> Yes, there'll be mistakes.

"Over the following weeks the patient experienced paralysis of the left arm, nausea, vomiting, and ended up being hospitalized for radiation-induced myelitis of the spinal cord. His legs, mid-diaphragm and vocal cords ended up paralyzed. He also had recurrent herpes simplex skin infections. He died five months after the overdose." [1]

"But your honor, I specifically wrote 'add unit tests for important functionality'!"

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

[smugma]

The story of the Therac25 is an important one. I first read it in college and re-read it every 5-10 years.

That said, I don’t think it’s a strong rebuttal to the arguments here. Context matters. Earlier poster mentioned they’d use it for a React front end but not a backend deletion.

Knowing the tool and the appropriateness of the tool in context is one of the lessons to be learned from the Therac 25 tragedy.

[CHY872]

'Please translate this AVX-256 algorithm to Arm NEON' is absolutely a prompt I'd give ChatGPT, and similar prompts have revealed new and useful intrinsics. Of course, results to be checked.

Assurance is a complex topic, and any safety critical device should have a carefully thought through architecture and rigorous testing program which minimises the risk of incidents. It therefore seems scarcely relevant here, beyond the fact that a well defined delivery system should be able to handle multiple human errors during implementation without leading to crucial failure modes occuring.