3 ms·
Probably, since you do not know the operational characteristics of the safety-critical device you are operating. It is a safety-critical device with known safet
by Veserv 3y ago
Probably, since you do not know the operational characteristics of the safety-critical device you are operating. It is a safety-critical device with known safety defects that is incomplete and that rejects defining any operational domain where it can operate safely. It literally does not define any way it can be used safely by a general consumer or the limits of its safe operation unlike say a chainsaw or a gun where there is a safety manual which defines the ways it can be operated safely by a user. This is acceptable when tested by a trained operator who is in direct contact with the designers and is made aware of the specific operational characteristics of the device, but not when operated by a untrained consumer. The product is literally, explicitly unfit for any use as it is a safety-critical product.
I guess you might not be getting scammed if you know it is unfit for any purpose, but at the very least you are being a danger to society for using a explicitly unsafe product that can not be operated safely.
- infoseek12 3y agoIt isn’t as though there isn’t an internal and governmental testing process in place to ensure a reasonable level of safety. I suppose what you’re saying is true, in the same sense that using any modern computer technology which has software in it’s stack, which hasn’t been formally verified, is fundamentally unsafe.
- jorvi 3y ago> in the same sense that using any modern computer technology which has software in it’s stack, which hasn’t been formally verified, is fundamentally unsafe. If an IDE on your laptop malfunctions, you end up with a crash or some malformed data. If self-driving fails, you end up barreling down the road in a 2 tonne deathbox, likely killing you or someone else. Not equivalent in the slightest.
- belltaco 3y agoYet that is what humans are allowed to do every day and kill people.
- infoseek12 3y agoSoftware powers more than just your IDE, even cars that don’t drive themselves depend on computer code. So it is in fact exactly equivalent.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoDo you think average website and an aircraft autopilot are written in the same programming language and to the same level of quality?
- infoseek12 3y agoNo, I think code like what is used to for Tesla’s Autopilot is written to a much higher quality and highly tested. That is in fact my entire point.
- judge2020 3y agoIt is only unsafe if the human operator lets it continue in unsafe situations. In a situation where it is taking a right turn at a red light, the only safety issue here would be the possibility of cosmic rays flipping enough bits in such a way that causes the software to instantly trigger full torque into another car, say a 1964 convertible mustang for maximum chance of fatally injuring the other humans. By your own argument all adaptive cruise control is unsafe. Maybe you think the manual and warnings given to the consumer qualify "defining any operational domain where it can operate safely", but it doesn't give an exhaustive list of "here's where you can safely operate this", it just says to not use it when it's unsafe to do so - it's always "drive safely and take control when necessary" because the scenarios are literally infinite.