• Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even then, I wouldn’t want it to have any functionality to update the code it runs once it’s implanted. And I’d want that code to be incredibly well tested and verified alongside the hardware. No bugs beforehand means no reason to update it later.

    • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No bugs is a hard thing to accomplish, especially for an immerging technology (eg 0-day vulnerability)

        • gregoryw3@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not sure that counts? This was unfortunately due to a completely untested system, designed by one guy way over his head (ethically should have reported this to some governing body), and a company who lied about the non existent testing. This wasn’t just a singular bug but an entire failure throughout.

          • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yet, afterwards, the code running medical devices has been subject to the same standards that we set for tools themselves. The code embedded in a life support machine can’t fail.

            I think you also proved my point anyway, the problem was a system set up such that testing wasn’t done. Not that the testing itself wasn’t possible. It’s just expensive. So companies won’t do it unless they’re forced too by regulation.