3 ms·
Unfortunately, there's nothing different he can say at this point. If he wrote it they way you and I would like it to be, he'd probably be facing shareholder l
by mattrp 8y ago
Unfortunately, there's nothing different he can say at this point. If he wrote it they way you and I would like it to be, he'd probably be facing shareholder lawsuits and SEC fines and none of that would lead to a productive outcome. And it wouldn't change the fact that 300 people are still dead. All we can do at this point is hope they don't rush the MAX fleet back into service before its really ready and that the Boeing board really inspects the company's culture to ensure the whole fiasco has a lasting impact. Almost a "never again" sort of approach. Boeing has been doing a tremendous amount of innovative stuff and pushing the envelope in way more areas - commercial flight, space, military - than ever before, but apparently at the expense of what got it to its dominant position in the first place -- uncompromising engineering excellence. I would agree with you that before we, as the passengers of their products, can move forward, a stronger statement needs to at least address the specifics of how this is going to change.
- mattrp 8y agoAnd not to diminish this one issue - but if this can happen to Boeing, imagine the risks that many other companies with less of a track record in engineering may be inadvertently taking with introductions/reliance on ML. We've focused a lot on the ethics of AI making life/death decisions but in this case, based on what we know today, the prime culprit seems to lie in the decisions of humans (i.e. not to put two devices in place, or three as many have suggested, the decision to place engine mass in a different area, the lack of UI in the cockpits, etc)