This is what a lot of people miss about "AI will replace" programmers narrative.

When converting from a traditional process to an electronic one, half my job is twisting people's arms and playing mind reader trying to determine what they ACTUALLY do day-to-day instead of the hypothetical offical, documented, process.

Some of the workarounds that people do instead of updating the process are damn right unhinged.

> how often the people that are being replaced are on the fly fixing the system the machine is intended to crystallize and automate.

If the system is broken, this is actually a good thing.

I have some experience doing automation work in small and large scale factories. When automating manufacturing work you almost always discover some flaws in the product or process that humans have been covering up as part of their job. These problems surface during the automation phase and get prioritized for fixes.

You might think you could accomplish the same thing by directly asking the people doing the work what could be improved, but in my experience they either don’t notice it any more because it’s part of their job or, in extreme cases, they like that the inefficiency exists because they think it provides extra job security.

This is exactly why “automation” hasn’t taken _that_ many jobs. It is a totally overlooked detail. Thanks for the reminder.

And then, how often they aren't[0]

[0]: "Computer Says No" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YGZPycMEU

And there's good reason for that. Someone with a clearance once explained to me that they're mainly worried about things that make you vulnerable to exploitation by foreign agents. If you're covering something up, that's something they can use to blackmail you.

But maybe if the thing you're revealing is "I myself was suspected to be a spy," that changes the calculus a bit.

Not remembering is one thing, but if they find out during the vetting process, and then they ask you about it, your answers had better be forthright.

> There is nothing morally wrong in felonies like this, just don't get caught.

Highly debatable. If you believe in a categorical imperative that to intentionally deceive another person is wrong, then lying by omission is still an immoral act. A Christian might also interpret the words of Jesus “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” as an imperative to comply fully with the law of the land.

The reasoning for some of these questions is that if you are caught, it’s sometimes easier to charge you with fraud (lying on the form) than the actual thing (such as espionage).

But they're required by laws of their own country to lie, presumably. There are certainly game-like aspects.

"Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide?"

Quite.

Those forms also ask if you've ever been a member of a communist party, and basically everyone over 35 in all of Eastern Europe would have to check that one (they don't, if they want to enter the US)