|
Failure due to the inevitable limitations of a system is one thing; failure because a hackjob, working 90% of the time, and catastrophically failing otherwise, was deployed? Thats just criminally negligent. Even if total fatalities drop, if the reason for the remaining deaths is that your car will arbitrarily lie with no justification, then you’ll lose trust in the whole thing. Systems that require trust should be reasonably perfect, so as to maintain that trust. Otherwise you’re really only going to get away with it by forcing it down the consumer’s throat, by top-down approaches (gov regulation, contracts with the ceo, etc). And when you’re doing that, who cares what the failure scenario and rate is? Lies to you 20% of the time, and its still on your head. 30%? 80%? The only group that needs to trust it at this point is management; they’re n steps removed from the issue, so as long as you can keep them from looking too hard, you can go as awful and shitty as you want. Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair. Or you just take it to management. Your website doesn’t need much trust, and your text editor needs some but not much. But your car? It most certainly does |