5 ms·
I agree that it should help reduce the amount of mistakes. But I still believe auto-pilot mode is a real thing (and a danger!) . My point is that I'm not sure
by saganus 10y ago
I agree that it should help reduce the amount of mistakes.
But I still believe auto-pilot mode is a real thing (and a danger!) .
My point is that I'm not sure if it's even possible to design one that actually cuts errors to 0.
And if that's indeed the case, even if it's close to 0, it's still non-zero, thus at the scale Amazon operates at, it's very probable that it will happen at least one time.
Maybe sometime in the future AI systems will help here?
- greglindahl 10y agoI totally agree that it's a real issue, a danger, and that it's impossible to cut errors to zero. I've also built complex systems that have been run in production for years with relatively few typo-related problems. The way I do it is with the design patterns like the one I just mentioned, which is also what TeMPOraL was talking about (and I guess you missed it.) If you have the same kind of confirmation whenever you delete a thing, whether it's an important thing or not, you're designing a system which encourages bad auto-pilot habits. You'll also note that Amazon's description of the way that they plan on changing their system is intended to fire extra confirmation only when it looks like the operator is about to make a massive mistake. That follows the design pattern I'm suggesting.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> My point is that I'm not sure if it's even possible to design one that actually cuts errors to 0. Personally, I don't believe it is without making the tool impotent. But you can try and push down the error probability down to arbitrarily low value.