I think my comment conveyed the wrong sentiment, my bad.
I’m suggesting exactly this: there are extremely common cases in which deterministic software outcomes are needed/mandatory/regulated.
Way more often than we think, often in boring and solved but critical environments.
Yet the entire AI industry acts as if that is an afterthought or an unimportant edge case.
> Yet the entire AI industry acts as if that is an afterthought or an unimportant edge case
Certainly it's not on the "AI industries" list of priorities. Perhaps, however, it's not supposed to be. I use AI tools for the use case I mentioned. The source code, build system, binary artifacts and hashes are still regulated in the way I described. The fact that the AI industry was involved in that chain simply isn't relevant.
Other uses cases involving real time agents and whatnot are another story. I'm not dealing with that problem. I suspect the AI industry doesn't really care about such attestation at this point because everyone is still in the frothy world of "new!" and the bureaucrats simply haven't caught up yet, and the adopters are taking advantage while they can. That pattern has recurred throughout the history of communication and computers.
I don't really object to that. There will be plenty of time for security theater after whatever limits are eventually found and exploited, and in the meantime there is free oxygen available.