How about too many logical connections to make? And how solid those connections are? Is there something that can be easily changed that will make the correlation untrue?
Like correlating consumption of ice-cream to drownings, a classic example used by actually competent statisticians? You can drown in a bathtub, but it will be blamed on alcohol, rather than ice-cream. You can eat too much ice-cream, to the point you hate it, and still not drown, like me (I do know how to swim). You kind of have to show that if you remove the ice-cream from the equation, that will affect the number of people drowning in all kinds of situations, even ridiculous ones like Gitmo waterboarding. Yes, ice-cream alone. If ice-cream gets replaced by something else, that doesn't matter, that's same as removing ice-cream from the equation, and therefore should result in less people drowning, even after Gitmo waterboarding. Valid statistics absolutely do require correlations to be that solid. Otherwise, you're just spouting nonsense, and it's not worth taking you seriously.
That logical chain you are trying to find, and which indeed would take a prohibitive amount of computation, is not what satistics, in the modern, quatic sense of statistics is about. Here's how it work.
You take state: CONSUMED x ICECREAM DURING x ABSOLUTE TIMEPERIOD AND x TIMEPERIOD RELATIVE TO y TIMEPERIOD
Then you take state: DROWNED
Then you superimpose the states.
You gather all possible data where both states exist, where only one exists, and where neither exists.
You derive a statistic for likelyness of one state being accompanied by the other.
You run that number against cases that you didn't use to derive your statistic.
You refine your statistic.
As you can see, the computational power required for this operation is exactly the same as the computational power it would take to determine probable future correlation between state foot kicks ball and state ball goes flying. You are not asking questions of why, you are not interested.
Then you get something that autogenerated programming engineers liek to call "emergence."
God's world is just bigger than your imagination.
Needless to say, if the correlation is weak, you discard it, if it is strong, you keep it, and so on.
Go ahead man, laugh. Einstein laughed too, while this method was used to turn his theories into a city-destroying uranium bomb.
Lol, and as I scroll up, I see it is relied on also by yourself, to derive powershell scripts
The question that people that use these autogenerated programs for work should ask themselves is not whether it is some kind of mark on their honor, which is the approach most people seem to take. The question they should be asking themselves is: if I can type a prompt into the autogenerated software's interface, why can't some exec who never opened a terminal window in their lives (or an Asian pseudo-slave in a labour farm, for that matter)?
Today it may seem like it can only at most inform a trained opinon. That was the case in the late 80's with chess programs. Now chess programs will beat the strongest players 1000 times out of 1000 without rooks and unlimited time for the players.
Another question you should be asking is: is this software possibly collecting statistics on the usefulness of its responses to further refine themselves, as well as my human responses in order to furhter refine psychological operation?
