Come on, most every business tracks revenue in great detail. If customers were getting unhappy with the firm’s services and rapidly switching en mass, the firm would quickly become very aware, and looking into the problem in great detail.
I don’t understand what part of my comment this is meant to be replying to. Is the claim that modern consumer software isn’t extremely buggy because customers have a preference for less buggy software, and therefore will strongly prefer providers of less buggy software?
This model doesn’t capture much of the relevant detail:
revenue attribution is extremely difficult
switching costs are often high
there are very rarely more than a few providers of comparable software
customers value things about software other than it being bug-free
But also, you could just check whether software has bugs in real life, instead of attempting to derive it from that model (which would give you bad results anyways).
Having both used and written quite a lot of software, I am sorry to tell you that it has a lot of bugs across nearly all domains, and that decisions about whether to fix bugs are only ever driven by revenue considerations to the extent that the company can measure the impact of any given bug in a straightforward enough manner. Tech companies are more likely to catch bugs in payment and user registration flows, because those tend to be closely monitored, but coverage elsewhere can be extremely spotty (and bugs definitely slip through in payment and user registration flows too).
But, ultimately, this seems irrelevant to the point I was making, since I don’t really expect an unaligned superintelligence to, what, cause company revenues to dip by behaving badly before it’s succeeded in its takeover attempt?
Come on, most every business tracks revenue in great detail. If customers were getting unhappy with the firm’s services and rapidly switching en mass, the firm would quickly become very aware, and looking into the problem in great detail.
I don’t understand what part of my comment this is meant to be replying to. Is the claim that modern consumer software isn’t extremely buggy because customers have a preference for less buggy software, and therefore will strongly prefer providers of less buggy software?
This model doesn’t capture much of the relevant detail:
revenue attribution is extremely difficult
switching costs are often high
there are very rarely more than a few providers of comparable software
customers value things about software other than it being bug-free
But also, you could just check whether software has bugs in real life, instead of attempting to derive it from that model (which would give you bad results anyways).
Having both used and written quite a lot of software, I am sorry to tell you that it has a lot of bugs across nearly all domains, and that decisions about whether to fix bugs are only ever driven by revenue considerations to the extent that the company can measure the impact of any given bug in a straightforward enough manner. Tech companies are more likely to catch bugs in payment and user registration flows, because those tend to be closely monitored, but coverage elsewhere can be extremely spotty (and bugs definitely slip through in payment and user registration flows too).
But, ultimately, this seems irrelevant to the point I was making, since I don’t really expect an unaligned superintelligence to, what, cause company revenues to dip by behaving badly before it’s succeeded in its takeover attempt?