5 ms·

I'm sure this bias has a name? The idea that changing the outcomes for the better is actually worse because different people are affected. Or maybe because in o

I'm sure this bias has a name? The idea that changing the outcomes for the better is actually worse because different people are affected. Or maybe because in one we are dying of a disease, and in the other one by software errors. Software errors should be avoidable, so they feel worse than disease somehow.

gambiting 11y ago
Think about it this way. Imagine there's a hypothetical medical device X. It has been calculated, that due to operator errors, this machine on average kills 1/1000 patients. Operators are given more training,but the average does not change. Now. Another company makes an automated machine, which kills 1/10000 patients on average, because of software errors. Do you think anyone would ever allow the second machine to be sold, even though it would save 9 persons compared to the manually operated machine? Of course not. If it ever came to light that it killed anyone due to a software error, it would be gone faster from the market than you can spell "liability". Does not matter that in fact it's killing less people on average than any other type of machine - it's just that in our minds software bugs are avoidable so therefore they are not acceptable at all.