Quite a few practical constraints on software are imposed by the physical world and our current ability to construct devices out of it. Working within those constraints to provide value that people can depend on isn't the worst definition of engineering I've heard.

▲

autoexec 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I just wish that software engineers had a similar level of accountability that an engineer building something like a bridge is held to. When a negligent software engineer causes harm to people nothing typically happens. No real risk of lawsuits, or loss of license, or worry about their liability insurance. This also means that software engineers can't effectively push back when their bosses want them to implement things that they know are insecure or dangerous

▲

saimiam 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, Meta just settled with states to the tune of 17 billion dollars for harm caused by its algorithms.

Air Canada, a few years back, was found liable when its ai bot promised discounted fares to a customer.

Companies are getting hacked and held to ransom regularly so bad software is getting punished alright.

Maybe the guy writing the actual line of code (or the guy in whose name AI code is being pushed to git) isn’t getting punished but software is definitely being scrutinised for ill effects.

	▲	autoexec 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Meta just settled with states to the tune of 17 billion dollars for harm caused by its algorithms. Those were working as intended, unlike a bridge that collapses because of bad design. > Air Canada, a few years back, was found liable when its ai bot promised discounted fares to a customer. That was a solid win for AI accountability, but it only cost them $812.02. They most likely made money using that lying AI bot. It wouldn't take a week of paying just one employee minimum wage to hit $812. Last I heard they're still using the chatbot. It's true that bad code can cost a company something, but its obviously not costly enough that they take the needed actions to avoid shipping it.