[giantg2]

"Food safety practices only became standardized after regulation was enacted."

Because you actually can standardize them. Software isn't so simple.

"> pre-approved and comparatively trivial recipes

That sounds like most software development."

Lol no that does not. Why wouldn't high school graduates or drop outs work in software instead of at fast food? The number of languages, frameworks, patterns, etc are much more complex than basic sanitation and time/temp/acidity.

[kube-system]

> Because you actually can standardize them. Software isn't so simple.

It isn't simple due to choice, not due to the nature of software. Software is relatively simple compared to other meat-space engineering disciplines. Software engineering is an relatively immature engineering discipline, but it is implicated in enough safety critical systems these days that it is about time to start maturing.

It will be painful but I welcome more software regulatory standards, because it is necessary for our trade to mature.

[jandrewrogers]

> Software is relatively simple compared to other meat-space engineering disciplines.

On what basis do you make this claim? If you do the same degree of optimization in software that is routinely applied in physical engineering disciplines that have some of most complex system dynamics problems, such as chemical engineering, the dynamics of software systems are qualitatively much more complex. We expect chemical engineering to design systems that asymptotically approach theoretically optimal efficiency along multiple dimensions. In software we rarely see anything approaching similar optimality except for small and exquisitely engineered components that are beyond the ken of most software engineers. In large software systems, the design problem is so complex that computational optimization to the degree we see in physical engineering is completely intractable, so similar approaches do not apply.

In chemical engineering, the measure of system complexity is roughly the size of the system of differential equations the govern the total dynamics of the system. Computers then solve for the system, which can be computationally intensive. We do this routinely, with some caveats. An optimal design is not computable but we can get asymptotically close via approximation.

In software engineering, the equivalent would be formal optimization and verification of the entire program. The complexity of doing this for non-trivial software is completely intractable. Software has so many degrees of freedom compared to physical systems that they aren’t even the same class of problem. It is arguable if it is even possible in theory to achieve similar degrees of design robustness and efficiency that we see in physical engineering systems.

Unlike physical engineering, where a computer takes a set of equations and constraints, crunches numbers, and produces an approximately optimal design, no such thing is possible in software.

[kube-system]

I wasn't really thinking "complexity" in terms of formal academic problem scope, but more so "complexity" in the surface of how it interacts with the rest of the world, which is more along the lines of what would be relevant to a regulator.

A regulator doesn't really care about the internal complexities of an LLM and whether or not that is more difficult than cracking petroleum. They care more about how those things interact with the rest of the world. Software is pretty limited in how it interacts with the rest of the world.

[davorak]

> A regulator doesn't really care about the internal complexities

Seems like you are over simplifying the process and goals of those creating new regulations and law makers often have to care about the internal complexities because they care about the consequences new regulations will have.

When a law maker is making regulations for an industry they should care about the internal complexities since that determines the long term effects of the regulation. Law makes should care if new regulations kill small businesses or, in an extreme case that is not happening with the CRA, kills of an industry, since that effects the economy of the the country they are law makers for in addition to directly impact people represented by those law makers.

[kube-system]

No, they really don't give a hoot. They have an end goal they're trying to accomplish, and that's their priority.

They will seek feedback from industry experts to determine if their rules should be refined, which is what is happening. The details of any internal complexity of an industry is entirely delegated.

[davorak]

> They will seek feedback from industry experts to determine if their rules should be refined, which is what is happening. The details of any internal complexity of an industry is entirely delegated.

We may be working with different definitions here. If they did not care they would not delegate away the details of the internal complexity.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

It’s probable to make the case that some forms of software are simple enough to regulate. How many Supabase style crud apps have been made in our lifetimes (not shading Supabase, they’re just automating the commonalities here)

[kube-system]

All software is simple enough to regulate. You don't have to micromanage every single line someone writes to regulate something. The way most professional regulations work is that someone writes down the safety practices that should be done, and then the law requires people to do those things.

For example, one might require some software to undergo various degrees of planning, testing, analysis, support, documentation, etc.

Right now, the amount of planning, testing, analysis, support, and documentation required by law is generally zero. This might be fine for someone's hobby project, but it is not okay for software that human lives depend on.

[jocoda]

> ...for software that human lives depend on.

who decides, and how?

[kube-system]

For every other technology regulated this way, this is determined at the end application.

How does someone know that a particular application is something lives depend on? Either your lawyer, insurance company, or regulator explicitly tells you.

[davorak]

> How does someone know that a particular application is something lives depend on? Either your lawyer, insurance company, or regulator explicitly tells you.

To make an analogy to the physical world. We have a company, B, that makes bolts, they publishes the characteristics of that bolt but do not certify it for any particular use.

Company C makes cars and decides to use bolts form company B. It turns out that is not a good choice since company B bolts do not have the characteristics that are need to use in a car.

The CRA from the a simple reading used in the discussions here[1], holds company B responsible for company C using the bolts in a way where peoples lives depend on it.

This sort of reuse can be much more common in software than it is bolts for example and just like company B did not control how company C used their product after buying it open source developers do not control how others use there software but CRA might make them liable for it.

This does not make sense to me, company C should be liable for their choice of bolt, company B should be liable for any false or incorrect claims for the characteristics of their bolt. Company B should not be held liable for the misuse of their bolt by company C which is what the CRA seems to do.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38788919