Respectfully, I sound like a Computer Engineer because I've worked alongside quite a number of them, and the ones I've worked with had this opinion too.

> A cursory look at a nix system would show ... <three things concattenated together>

This doesn't negate or refute the pigeonhole principle. In following pigeonhole there is some likelihood that a collision will exist, and that probability trends to 1 given sufficient iterations (time).

The only argument you have is a measure of likelihood and probability, which is a streetlight effect cognitive bias or intelligence trap. There's a video which discusses these type of traps on youtube, TED from an ex-CIA officer.

Likelihood and probability are heavily influenced by the priors they measure, and without perfect knowledge (which no one has today) those priors may deviate significantly, or be indeterminable.

Imagine for a second that a general method for rapidly predicting collisions, regardless of algorithm, is discovered and released; which may not be far off given current advances with quantum computing.

All the time and money cumulatively spent towards Nix, as cost becomes wasted, and you are left in a position of complete compromise suddenly and without a sound pivot for comparable cost (previously).

With respect, if you can't differentiate basic a priori reasoned logic from AI, I would question your perceptual skills and whether they are degrading. There is a growing body of evidence that exposure to AI may cause such degradation as seems to be starting to be seen with regards to doctors and their use and diagnostics after use in various studies (1).

1: https://time.com/7309274/ai-lancet-study-artificial-intellig...