The whole auto factory thing sounds completely misinformed to me. Just because a machine made it does not mean the output isn't checked in a multitude of ways.
Any manufacturing process is subject to quality controls. Machines are maintained. Machine parts are swapped out long before they lead to out-of-tolerance work. Process outputs are statistically characterised, measured and monitored. Measurement equipment is recalibrated on a schedule. 3d printed parts are routinely X-rayed to check for internal residue. If something can go wrong, it sure as hell is checked.
Maybe things that can't possibly fail are not checked, but the class of software that can't possibly fail is currently very small, no matter who or what generates it.
Additionally production lines are all about doing the same thing over and over again, with fairly minimal variations.
Software isn't like that. Because code is relatively easy to reuse, novelty tends to dominate new code written. Software developers are acting like integrators in at least partly novel contexts, not stamping out part number 100k of 200k that are identical.
I do think modern ML has a place as a coding tool, but these factory like conceptions are very off the mark imo.
On the auto factory side, the Toyota stuck gas pedal comes to mind, even if it can happen only under worst-case circumstances. But that's the (1 - 0.[lots of nines]) case.
On the software side, the THERAC story is absolutely terrifying - you replace a physical interlock with a software-based one that _can't possibly go wrong_ and you get a killing machine that would probably count as unethical for executions of convicted terrorists.
THERAC was terrible. And intermittent to for extra horror.
I am a strong proponent of hardware level interlocks for way more mundane things than that. It helps a lot in debugging to narrow down the possible states of things.
A buddy of mine was a director in a metrology integration firm that did nothing but install lidar, structured light and other optical measurement solutions for auto assembly plants. He had a couple dozen people working full time on new model line build outs (every new model requires substantial refurb and redesign to the assembly line) and ongoing QA of vehicles as they were being manufactured at two local Honda plants. The precision they were looking for is pretty remarkable.
> Any manufacturing process is subject to quality controls.
A few things on this illusion:
* Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns
* QA workers are often pressured to let small things fly and cave easily because they simply do not get paid enough to care and know they won't win that fight unless their employer's product causes some major catastrophe that costs lives
* Most common goods and infrastructure are built by the lowest bidder with the cheapest materials using underpaid labor, so as for "quality" we're already starting at the bottom.
There is this notion that because things like ISO and QC standards exist, people follow them. The enforcement of quality is weak and the reach of any enforcing bodies is extremely short when pushed up against the wall by the teams of lawyers afforded to companies like Boeing or Stellantis.
I see it too regularly at my job to not call out this idea that quality control is anything but smoke and mirrors, deployed with minimal effort and maximum reluctance. Hell, it's arguably the reason why I have a job since about 75% of the machines I walk in their doors to fix broke because they were improperly maintained, poorly implemented or sabotaged by an inept operator. It leaves me embittered, to be honest, because it doesn't have to be this way and the only reason why it is boils down to greed and mismanagement.
> Any manufacturer will do everything in their power to avoid meeting anything but the barest minimums of standards due to budget concerns
Perhaps this is industry dependent?
In my country’s automotive industry, quality control standards have risen a lot in the past few decades. These days consumers expect the doors and sunroof not to leak, no rust even after 15 years being kept outdoors, and the engine to start first time even after two weeks in an airport carpark.
How is this achieved? Lots of careful quality checking.
For context, I am in the US and in a position to see what goes on behind the scenes in most of the major auto-maker factories and some aerospace, but that's about as far as I can talk about it, since some of them are DoD contracters.
Quality Control is a valuable tool when deployed correctly and, itself, monitored for consistency and areas where improvement can happen. There is what I consider a limp-wristed effort to improve QC in the US, but in the end, it's really about checking some bureaucratic box as opposed to actually making better product, although sometimes we get lucky and the two align.
Your comment is adversarial for no reason. "Real" QC? I work for people who make vehicles on the ground and in the air that hold passengers expecting to be delivered safely. Some of them even make parts for very large structures that are expected to remain standing when the wind blows too hard or the ground shakes too much. Let's talk about "real" QC and these other imagined types that must exist to you.
Can you define the differences between "real" QC and other versions? Does this imply a "fake" QC? Does that mean that our auto and aerospace manufacturers can't hold themselves to the same quality standards as Big Pharma, since both are ultimately trying to achieve the same goal in avoiding the litigation that comes with putting your customers at risk?
Let's not pretend that pharma co's have never side-stepped regulation or made decisions that put swaths of the population in a position to harm themselves.
My argument was dispelling the general idea that just because rules are in place, they are being followed. Believe me, I'd love to live in that world, but have seen little evidence that we do.
Just a reader of this thread, but that wasn't my take on it. The text you quoted was, I think, an overgeneralisation (there are certainly manufacturers who perform above the baseline standards), but I don't think it was worded adversarially? It then provided some more information (some of which I have heard from others in the industry, especially around QA being pressured to pass defective items).
The post they are complaining about was a driveby dismissive statement that didn't add anything to the discussion whatsoever.
Huge difference between me saying manufacturers will cut corners in any way they can (maybe you're taking this as consumer vs manufacterer?) and the person who replied to me saying I don't work a job that encounters "real" (read intentionally vague and diminutive) QC standars. One is a blanket statement that is backed by easily accessed and very public evidence, the other is personal attack.
I'm not sure how it's a personal attack, it would be like someone who bakes bread for a living saying that the tolerance of products doesn't really matter, compared with a machinist who knows exactly how much it can matter. It's quantifiably true that serious QA is a thing, your industry just doesn't have it. If you choose to turn that into a personal attack I think that says more about your internal state than it does about the actual post I made.
It’s been said that every jetliner that is in the air right now has a 1in hairline fracture in it somewhere? But that the plane is designed for the failure of any one or two parts?
Software doesn’t exactly work the same way. You can make “AI” that operates more like [0,1] but at the end of the day the computer is still going to {0,1}.
Any manufacturing process is subject to quality controls. Machines are maintained. Machine parts are swapped out long before they lead to out-of-tolerance work. Process outputs are statistically characterised, measured and monitored. Measurement equipment is recalibrated on a schedule. 3d printed parts are routinely X-rayed to check for internal residue. If something can go wrong, it sure as hell is checked.
Maybe things that can't possibly fail are not checked, but the class of software that can't possibly fail is currently very small, no matter who or what generates it.