> We're still figuring all this out.

The defining feature of engineering as a profession isn't how much we collectively know about it, it's the attitude we bring into day-to-day practice.

Take something like the Sony BMG rootkit scandal[0]. Anybody with an ounce of sense and even basic technical programming knowledge could tell the sort of security issues that that piece of software could lead to. Shipping that thing was the sort of recklessness that would get you stricken from any industry's professional body.

Or maybe something like the UK's Post Office scandal[1]. One of the issues there was that post offices sold foreign currency. People were accused of (and actually jailed for) fraud because their branch sold $100, there's £70 in the till, and the reconciliation process says that the exchange rate is $100:£80, so there's £10 missing. Horizon had no way to track that the exchange rate at the time of the transaction was $100:£70, they literally shipped a billing system that handles ForEx but doesn't understand exchange rates change over time. And then they lied about it and said the software was working correctly! This isn't an issue with "revolutionary new tech" that we don't fully understand, it's simply a fruit of having an accounting system designed with no actual accountants in the loop. If an accountant had made this exact same mistake, their licence would almost certainly be revoked, but it's somehow ok because computers are involved?

> If so, then maybe we can talk about getting bureaucrats involved to make up a bunch of rules and regulations to control everybody

We don't need "a bunch" of rules and regulations. We only need one: You're liable for damages resulting from reasonably predictable outcomes, as judged by a panel of your peers.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal