3 ms·
It's about what you do with errors. If you let them compound they lead to destruction, if instead you inspect, maintain, reinspect, replace, etc. you can manage
by constantcrying 1y ago
It's about what you do with errors. If you let them compound they lead to destruction, if instead you inspect, maintain, reinspect, replace, etc. you can manage them.
My point was that something extremely complex, like a plane, works, because the system tries hard to prevent compounding errors.
- sarchertech 1y agoThat works because each plane is (nearly) exactly the same as the one before it and we have exact specifications for the plane. You can do maintenance, inspections, and replacement because of those specifications. In software the equivalent of blueprints is code. The room for variation outside software “specifications” is infinite. Human reliability when comes to assembling planes is also much higher than 99%, and LLM reliability creating code is much, much lower than 99%.
- stavros 1y agoIf you think human reliability when writing code is more than 99%, have I got news for you!
- sarchertech 1y agoIf you’re going by bugs per lines of code, I’m far higher than 99% reliable.
- stavros 1y agoWhen measuring the reliability of my vacuum, I don't go by component, so I don't go by line when I measure the reliability of my code.
- sarchertech 1y agoOk if we measure uptime of the software I’ve written it’s far higher than 99%.
- stavros 1y agoAgain, we're not measuring uptime. We're measuring how many of them had at least one bug.
- sarchertech 1y agoSo if your vacuum had one component that was out of spec, but didn’t put it out of commission for any length of time, it’s 0% reliable?