I’m not willing to argue with you. I’ve argued this with you¹ a thousand times, you are not rational. Everyone who reads your shit knows what I’m talking about. Ask them.
¹perhaps with a different name and face, but otherwise indistinguishable. It gets tedious.
With the amount you’ve typed you could have easily typed a rationale. The truth is your opinions don’t hold weight and have no good rationale. That is all.
The burden of proof is on you. Show me one example of a company being held liable (really liable, not a settlement/fine for a fraction of the money they made) for a software mistake that hurt people.
The reality is that a company can make X dollars with software that makes mistakes, and then pay X/100 dollars when that hurts people and goes to court. That’s not a punishment, that’s a cost of business. And the company pays that fine and the humans who mode those decisions are shielded from further repercussions.
When you said:
the idea that the software vendor could not be held liable is farcical
We need YOU to back that up. The rest of us have seen it never be accurate.
And it gets worse when the software vendor is a step removed: See flock cameras making big mistakes. Software decided that this car was stolen, but it was wrong. The police intimidated an innocent civilian because the software was wrong. Not only were the police not held accountable, Flock was never even in the picture.
I’m sure you’ll make up some excuses for why somehow none of these count, but the list is so deep you could debate every example here and 10 more would pop up. Tons more happens behind the scenes too with SLA contracts etc.
This sounds like you knew you were wrong all along but still wanted to be a snide, condescending, and undeservedly arrogant about it.
The fact that some don’t doesn’t mean that none do.
You go do some leg work before requesting it of me after thinking you could just troll your way out of your ridiculous initial comment
Reading your other comments outside this thread, this whole chain seems so illogical. What triggered this bizarre emotional reaction to such a relatively innocuous comment? You must have been reading something in.
I’m happy you provided a few examples. This is good for anyone else reading along.
Equifax in 2017: Penalty was, let’s assume the worst case, 700$M. The company in 2017 made 3.3$B, and I’d assume that was after the penalty, but even if it wasn’t, that was a penalty of 27% of revenue. That actually seems like it would hurt.
Uber in 2018: your link suggests Uber avoided any legal discovery that might have exposed their wrongdoing. There are no numbers in the linked article and a search suggest the numbers are not public. Fuck that. A woman was killed by an AI driven car and the family deserves respect and privacy, but uber DOES NOT. Because it’s not a public record, I can’t tell how much they paid out for the death of the victim, and since uber is one of those modern venture-capital-loss-leader companies, this is hard to respond to.
I’m out of time – and won’t likely be able to finish before the weekend, so trying to wrap up – and Boeing seems complicated and I’m more familiar with Crowdstrike and I know they fucked up. In both cases, I’m not sure how much of a penalty they paid out relative to income.
I’ll cede the point: There are some companies who have paid a price for making mistakes. When you’re talking companies, though, the only metric is money-paid/money-earned. I would really like there to be criminal penalties for leadership who chase profit over safety, so there’s a bit of ‘wishful thinking’ in my worldview. If you kill someone as a human being (or 300 persons, Boeing), you end up with years in prison, but company just pays 25% of it’s profit that year instead.
I still think Cassandra is right, and that more often than not, software companies are not held responsible for their mistakes. And I think your other premise, that ‘if software is better at something’ carries a lot: Software is good at explicit computation, such as math, but is historically incapable of empathy (a significant part of the original topic… I don’t want to be a number in a cost/benefit calculation). I don’t want software replacing a human in the loop.
Back to my example of a flock camera telling the police that a stolen car was identified… the software was just wrong. The police department didn’t admit any wrongdoing and maaaaybe at some point the victim will be compensated for their suffering, but I expect flock will not be on the hook for that. It will be the police department, which is funded by taxpayers.
Reading your comments outside this thread, I think we would agree on a great many things and have interesting conversations. I didn’t intend to come across as snide, condescending or arrogant. You made the initial point, cassandra challenged you and I agreed with them, so I joined where they seemed not to.
The “bizarre emotion reaction” is probably that I despise AI and want it nowhere near any decision-making capability. I think that as we embed “AI” in software, we will find that real people are put at more risk and that software companies will be able to deflect blame when things go wrong.
This is pure pseudo intellectualism because you literally have no argument or point.
You have no reasoning and are projecting that onto me because you can’t explain this opinion your feelings have brought you to.
I’m not willing to argue with you. I’ve argued this with you¹ a thousand times, you are not rational. Everyone who reads your shit knows what I’m talking about. Ask them.
¹perhaps with a different name and face, but otherwise indistinguishable. It gets tedious.
With the amount you’ve typed you could have easily typed a rationale. The truth is your opinions don’t hold weight and have no good rationale. That is all.
The burden of proof is on you. Show me one example of a company being held liable (really liable, not a settlement/fine for a fraction of the money they made) for a software mistake that hurt people.
The reality is that a company can make X dollars with software that makes mistakes, and then pay X/100 dollars when that hurts people and goes to court. That’s not a punishment, that’s a cost of business. And the company pays that fine and the humans who mode those decisions are shielded from further repercussions.
When you said:
We need YOU to back that up. The rest of us have seen it never be accurate.
And it gets worse when the software vendor is a step removed: See flock cameras making big mistakes. Software decided that this car was stolen, but it was wrong. The police intimidated an innocent civilian because the software was wrong. Not only were the police not held accountable, Flock was never even in the picture.
Burden of proof? You literally just made your first point about anything I said, I shouldn’t have even wasted the time responding.
You are really staking your argument on thinking companies don’t get consequences for software fuckups?
I’m sure you’ll make up some excuses for why somehow none of these count, but the list is so deep you could debate every example here and 10 more would pop up. Tons more happens behind the scenes too with SLA contracts etc.
This sounds like you knew you were wrong all along but still wanted to be a snide, condescending, and undeservedly arrogant about it.
The fact that some don’t doesn’t mean that none do.
You go do some leg work before requesting it of me after thinking you could just troll your way out of your ridiculous initial comment
Reading your other comments outside this thread, this whole chain seems so illogical. What triggered this bizarre emotional reaction to such a relatively innocuous comment? You must have been reading something in.
I’m happy you provided a few examples. This is good for anyone else reading along.
Equifax in 2017: Penalty was, let’s assume the worst case, 700$M. The company in 2017 made 3.3$B, and I’d assume that was after the penalty, but even if it wasn’t, that was a penalty of 27% of revenue. That actually seems like it would hurt.
TSB in 2022: Fined ~48.6£M by two separate agencies. TSB made 183.5£M in revenue in 2022, still unclear if that was pre- or post- penalty, but this probably actually hurt.
Uber in 2018: your link suggests Uber avoided any legal discovery that might have exposed their wrongdoing. There are no numbers in the linked article and a search suggest the numbers are not public. Fuck that. A woman was killed by an AI driven car and the family deserves respect and privacy, but uber DOES NOT. Because it’s not a public record, I can’t tell how much they paid out for the death of the victim, and since uber is one of those modern venture-capital-loss-leader companies, this is hard to respond to.
I’m out of time – and won’t likely be able to finish before the weekend, so trying to wrap up – and Boeing seems complicated and I’m more familiar with Crowdstrike and I know they fucked up. In both cases, I’m not sure how much of a penalty they paid out relative to income.
I’ll cede the point: There are some companies who have paid a price for making mistakes. When you’re talking companies, though, the only metric is money-paid/money-earned. I would really like there to be criminal penalties for leadership who chase profit over safety, so there’s a bit of ‘wishful thinking’ in my worldview. If you kill someone as a human being (or 300 persons, Boeing), you end up with years in prison, but company just pays 25% of it’s profit that year instead.
I still think Cassandra is right, and that more often than not, software companies are not held responsible for their mistakes. And I think your other premise, that ‘if software is better at something’ carries a lot: Software is good at explicit computation, such as math, but is historically incapable of empathy (a significant part of the original topic… I don’t want to be a number in a cost/benefit calculation). I don’t want software replacing a human in the loop.
Back to my example of a flock camera telling the police that a stolen car was identified… the software was just wrong. The police department didn’t admit any wrongdoing and maaaaybe at some point the victim will be compensated for their suffering, but I expect flock will not be on the hook for that. It will be the police department, which is funded by taxpayers.
Reading your comments outside this thread, I think we would agree on a great many things and have interesting conversations. I didn’t intend to come across as snide, condescending or arrogant. You made the initial point, cassandra challenged you and I agreed with them, so I joined where they seemed not to.
The “bizarre emotion reaction” is probably that I despise AI and want it nowhere near any decision-making capability. I think that as we embed “AI” in software, we will find that real people are put at more risk and that software companies will be able to deflect blame when things go wrong.