nimbledaemon

I'm not actually indicating my personal preference on the situation at all, just my perception on the dynamics at play.

The theory does not actually have anything to do with how many people are willing to abuse a gap in regulations for personal gain, it's analyzing the dynamic between people who would abuse the system for personal gain, and that abuse causing a situation where people will enact vigilante justice against the first group. So people who are self interested will be less likely to abuse the system in ways that mark them as a target. All it requires is that the vigilantism is common and a known factor to the people abusing the system, so that the ways they choose to abuse the system are less obvious. Of course it could go any number of ways based on other factors, I'm just commenting on the dynamics of the interaction here.

They are very similar, yes, but synonyms will often have subtly different definitions and connotations that mean you can't just replace one with the other wherever you want. Frankly, the difference between murder and killing is something I learned in high school English so I understand that the difference might have been off your radar before now, but this is the way the words are used most frequently, they're different words for a reason. Murder implies a moral or legal judgement on the action of killing, and killing is just dispassionately describing that something has died as a result of some other action. We all learn something new every day, it's OK not to know something.

I mean, definitionally yes murder is always wrong. Killing isn't always wrong, but murder is when killing is unjustified so yeah, it's always wrong.

The end result is not that no one wants to be a CEO of a health insurance company, the end result is that health insurance CEO's run their companies in a way that doesn't increase the likelihood that some vigilante Luigi's them. Either that or they switch to a company model that doesn't need CEO's, so there's no one person to target as responsible. There's a market niche that needs to be filled no matter how many CEO's die. Obviously this isn't the most desirable end state (public health care anyone?) but I think that's where this system finds its balance rather than health insurance just going away.

I just generated an entire angular component (table with filters, data services, using in house software patterns and components, based off of existing work) using copilot for work yesterday. It didn't work at first, but I'm a good enough software engineer that I iterated on the issues, discarding bad edits and referencing specific examples from the extant codebase and got copilot to fix it. 3-4 days of work (if you were already familiar with the existing way of doing things) done in about 3-4 hours. But if you didn't know what was going on and how to fix it you'd end up with an unmaintainable non functional mess, full of bugs we have specific fixes in place to avoid but copilot doesn't care about because it doesn't have an idea of how software actually works, just what it should look like. So for anything novel or complex you have to feed it an example, then verify it didn't skip steps or forget to include something it didn't understand/predict, or make up a library/function call. So you have to know enough about the software you're making to point that stuff out, because just feeding whatever error pops out of your compiler back into the AI may get you to working code, but it won't ensure quality code, maintainability, or intelligibility.