Couldn't agree more. And aside from your points, I've been programming long enough to know I never want the fate of society decided by software. We're just not good enough at programming yet. Our tools are imprecise, our discipline is not rigorous, and we prioritize features and speed over correctness. I hold no illusions that we'd approach government automation with even the rigor that the space shuttle software was afforded.
Heh, thinking more about "speed over correctness": we can't even get that right with people making the decision. Consider the secretive, rushed GOP tax bill that just passed...
> I hold no illusions that we'd approach government automation with even the rigor that the space shuttle software was afforded.
I can't see any reason why my an application for a spot in school should have anything like the rigor afforded to
99% of government automation is of the "handle the easy stuff and dump the hard stuff to the operator to use their big fat brain" variety. In theory, well factored systems and machine learning should let more and more of that over to machines happily :)
The vast majority of dialog between governments and citizens is kinda boring with occasional exception handling. Think tax handling... The exceptions are demanding, and require expertise, and looots of time, but most other things get 'rubber stamped'.
Politicos get lots of control through the tax code and supplier agreements. Software will just make them better at it ;)
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about building automation to actually make decisions on legislation, or on things like "input evidence -> here's your prison sentence".
Heh, thinking more about "speed over correctness": we can't even get that right with people making the decision. Consider the secretive, rushed GOP tax bill that just passed...