3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Anyhow, even stearman or lrbs might’ve been a bit more diplomatic, I always remember that some of my best teachers were never the friendliest. 😁🤙

Perhaps we should accept that everyone is different. Some are more sensitive and gentle, while others tend to be harsher. This is simply how we are. Speaking for myself, I am direct—no sugarcoating, no political correctness or diplomacy to please others. I am a straight shooter. That said, I respect everyone and avoid foul language. When we respect each other and have productive conversations, I believe the need for more diplomatic language diminishes. Since many here use the "ignore" feature and some are sensitive, it seems like a good idea to utilize that option. Please, don't take it the wrong way; it's just an opinion, as is yours. 

7 hours ago, P_7878 said:

I didn't read all of the text, but I gather you're also providing (or attempting to do so) some highlights from your extensive resume, while it's always best if we educate ourselves some more on a topic, before lecturing others.

As I said, I read all your text generated by a language model, so the least you could do is read mine since it's written by actual subject matter experts.  😉 

If you do read it, you'll see that I'm not really presenting my opinion on anything.  I'm sharing with you a written report on a study spanning over a decade, conducted by teams of human factors and flight standards experts.  I did not work on this study.  It has nothing to do with me.  I'm not sure where you got this idea. 

The only opinion I shared - which I stand by, as it is quite defensible - is that it's somewhat disingenuous (I'll use a polite word) for a person with no knowledge or experience of an industry to honestly think they could use a language model that's incapable of understanding anything, to lecture a 30 year professional on his industry.  On a video game forum.  If this is the level to which folks are leaning on "AI" these days, the world really is in trouble...

Sincerely, read the advisory circular I linked, particularly the part about manual flight operations.  Perhaps you'll want to fire off some ChatGPT rebuttal to the FAA and NTSB as well.  😉

2 hours ago, RobJC said:

KDEN to KLAX. Lol

That's a nice trip, not sure, if A380 worthy...🙂...after all, you recently did a 130-miles (London Gatwick -> Ostend–Bruges) flight in an A350. This one is a little longer...

In one of my 2 (KORD->KLAX) trips, I'd deliberately taken a 1-stop layover at Denver, just so, I could see the tent roof architecture of the Airport. It was with United's Ted Airlines A320, I recall. Ted was based in Denver. We were lucky to be put on a hold, and I got a nice bird's-eye view of the iconic structure, on the way down.

Edited February 28Feb 28 by P_7878

2 hours ago, P_7878 said:

That's a nice trip, not sure, if A380 worthy...🙂...after all, you recently did a 130-miles (London Gatwick -> Ostend–Bruges) flight in an A350. This one is a little longer...

In one of my 2 (KORD->KLAX) trips, I'd deliberately taken a 1-stop layover at Denver, just so, I could see the tent roof architecture of the Airport. It was with United's Ted Airlines A320, I recall. Ted was based in Denver. We were lucky to be put on a hold, and I got a nice bird's-eye view of the iconic structure, on the way down.

Yeah, a bit short but the typical shakedown flight for me! That A380 doesn’t have everything modeled but the basics work and it flies nice. These airliners almost fly themselves.I think i need to go old school. 

I live in Colorado so I know KDEN well. Cool structure! I was flying from the Fedex cargo terminal on my flights with the 777F out of Denver. Drove by it so many times. 

 

On 2/27/2026 at 11:16 PM, Stearmandriver said:

The only opinion I shared - which I stand by, as it is quite defensible - is that it's somewhat disingenuous (I'll use a polite word) for a person with no knowledge or experience of an industry to honestly think they could use a language model that's incapable of understanding anything, to lecture a 30 year professional on his industry.

I completely agree with you about AI, but what you’re describing here is the opposite of “disingenuous”.

8 hours ago, booga said:

I completely agree with you about AI, but what you’re describing here is the opposite of “disingenuous”.

Wouldn't be the first time I've misused a word.  😉. But I looked it up and, no, it seems about what I meant. 

"Disingenuous describes behavior, speech, or people that are insincere, calculating, and lacking in frankness, often giving a false appearance of being honest. It implies a deliberate, meanly artful attempt to mislead..."

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Wouldn't be the first time I've misused a word.  😉. But I looked it up and, no, it seems about what I meant. 

"Disingenuous describes behavior, speech, or people that are insincere, calculating, and lacking in frankness, often giving a false appearance of being honest. It implies a deliberate, meanly artful attempt to mislead..."

Fair enough. I’ve always understood it to mean the following, though (from Oxford Languages): “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”

On 2/27/2026 at 12:11 PM, LRBS said:

Perhaps we should accept that everyone is different. Some are more sensitive and gentle, while others tend to be harsher. This is simply how we are. Speaking for myself, I am direct—no sugarcoating, no political correctness or diplomacy to please others. I am a straight shooter. That said, I respect everyone and avoid foul language. When we respect each other and have productive conversations, I believe the need for more diplomatic language diminishes. Since many here use the "ignore" feature and some are sensitive, it seems like a good idea to utilize that option. Please, don't take it the wrong way; it's just an opinion, as is yours. 

Oh, yeah - 100pct with you. 🤙

Just spreading a little oil on the water, so to speak 😁👍

Edited March 1Mar 1 by UrgentSiesta

18 hours ago, booga said:

I completely agree with you about AI, but what you’re describing here is the opposite of “disingenuous”.

10 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Wouldn't be the first time I've misused a word.  😉. But I looked it up and, no, it seems about what I meant. 

"Disingenuous describes behavior, speech, or people that are insincere, calculating, and lacking in frankness, often giving a false appearance of being honest. It implies a deliberate, meanly artful attempt to mislead..."

Rather than disingenuous, which is universally negative, I’d submit that “credulous” is a better fit.

I’d be willing to bet at least a good six-pack that 7878 was replying in good faith.

🤙

 

5 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Rather than disingenuous, which is universally negative, I’d submit that “credulous” is a better fit.

I’d be willing to bet at least a good six-pack that 7878 was replying in good faith.

🤙

 

I agree. I would like to see a forum-wide ban on AI generated “information”, though.

12 minutes ago, booga said:

I agree. I would like to see a forum-wide ban on AI generated “information”, though.

That’s rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

AI is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. 

and even tho I recently complained about it, I use it every single day, and it saves me just a TON of time every week. 

We all just need to realize that we need to interact with it in the same manner as we would a very young, extremely intelligent child. 

5 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

That’s rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

AI is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. 

and even tho I recently complained about it, I use it every single day, and it saves me just a TON of time every week. 

We all just need to realize that we need to interact with it in the same manner as we would a very young, extremely intelligent child. 

Completely unrelated to the specific aspect of this thread that started the exchange:

I’m with @UrgentSiesta on this one. If the Mods enforce such a ban here, of course, we as forum users have to adhere to the rule, no questions about it.

However, we wish we could have the same enforcement in our workplaces (for those of us, who are still not retired…and hoping, so, we’ll have more time to fly…🙂…). I will tell you that will not happen. 

Even though working 30+ years in high-tech field, I would rather speak to a human any day vs. a computer. Yesterday, for a bank transaction, I drove and showed up at the teller window, that I could have accomplished without talking to anyone. I told the teller, “I’m here for a bit of human interaction, like it used to be…”. She smiled and said, “Thank you for stopping by, Sir. How can I help you?”

AI is (and will be) here with or without us. I did recently a historical post about how the father-son duo of Zeiglers, spearheaded the birth and evolution of Airbus, and when, folks were resisting the introduction of FBW (of A320). Now FBW technology is present in some form or other in the airplanes of both the majors.

Those of us who have done active research in the libraries, it’s heartening to know that AI is making the tasks so much easier, no walking up and down the floors, opening volumes etc., but just let the fingers do the walking…🙂…

As @UrgentSiesta rightly has said, we need to approach and interact with it, with (adult) human judgement, not emotion.

This is true in our aviation realms too, both in technology and in flight.

(No, this text is not written by AI. I would rather write and make a mistake or two instead of letting AI write all of it, and make even more stupid mistakes. My AI excerpts are always within quotes.)

Cheers…!

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

That’s rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

AI is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. 

and even tho I recently complained about it, I use it every single day, and it saves me just a TON of time every week. 

We all just need to realize that we need to interact with it in the same manner as we would a very young, extremely intelligent child. 

AI tools are untrustworthy when it comes to factual information. They frequently state falsehoods as if with absolute certainty. Nothing they say should be passed on without extensive questioning and research - which begs the question: why use them for factual queries in the first place?

I accept they may have other uses - I have been told they're quite useful for generating code, for example. 

7 minutes ago, booga said:

AI tools are untrustworthy when it comes to factual information. They frequently state falsehoods as if with absolute certainty. Nothing they say should be passed on without extensive questioning and research - which begs the question: why use them for factual queries in the first place?

I accept they may have other uses - I have been told they're quite useful for generating code, for example. 

If this binary view is your perspective and what you believe, then you’re sadly mistaken. 

Just now, UrgentSiesta said:

If this binary view is your perspective and what you believe, then you’re sadly mistaken. 

I've never asked an AI tool an in-depth factual question regarding a subject about which I am reasonably knowledgeable and not received an incorrect answer.