Summary of Key Points
This article uses the everyday example of a fire escape to illustrate a often overlooked principle: many seemingly “useless” safety mechanisms and redundant spaces are actually “lifesaving backups” against extreme risks. Whether in business management or the era of AI agents, people tend to pursue efficiency in daily operations (such as space utilization and process speed), but they often sacrifice the buffers that can handle low-probability events with high consequences. The article emphasizes that the value of these mechanisms lies not in how many times they are used, but in whether they are available when needed—especially as AI begins to perform tasks autonomously; it is crucial to retain this final line of defense and not dismiss their existence based on conventional metrics (such as interception rates).
1. Fire escapes should not be used for storage: It’s not a waste; it’s a space reserved for emergencies
Have you ever seen fire exits in shopping malls or warehouses filled with boxes? From the owner’s perspective, that empty space is just empty space, and storing goods there could generate extra revenue. Moreover, since no fires have occurred in recent years, it seems like there’s no problem. However, the issue lies with low-probability events: the likelihood of a fire may be one in ten thousand, but once it happens, a blocked fire escape can be fatal.
The purpose of a fire escape is not for daily use; it is for emergency situations. It must remain unobstructed because being “empty” is its very function—just like a first-aid kit at home that takes up space but can save lives in an emergency. Those who think fire escapes are a waste are measuring them by their daily usage, while their true value lies in those extreme moments that we never want to experience but could happen.
2. Safety mechanisms are always deemed “useless”? Because their success means nothing happened
The most awkward aspect of safety systems in businesses (such as monitoring for unusual transactions or emergency braking mechanisms) is that the better they work, the less people recognize their usefulness. Business systems can show data like a 20% increase in orders, while security systems may report “no fires this year” or “no unusual transactions intercepted”—which seems like they’ve achieved nothing.
But think about it: if a security system intercepts an unusual transaction once, and that transaction involves a mistake of one million dollars, the value of that interception could outweigh the cost of the system over several years. Evaluating safety mechanisms should not focus on how many times they have intervened; instead, we need to consider what would happen if they failed. It’s like a security door at home—you can’t remove it just because you’ve never had a theft.
3. Do companies pursuing “zero downtime” also eliminate their buffers?
Companies today love to optimize efficiency: minimizing inventory, maximizing server utilization, merging roles, and reducing approval steps. These practices can save money, but they have side effects—they eliminate the system’s “buffer zones.” For example, without safety stock in the supply chain, costs are low, but a pandemic could lead to production stops due to raw material shortages; without backup servers, high utilization means the entire system crashes if the main server fails. These “idle” resources are not wasted; they act as buffers that absorb shocks. It’s like maintaining a safe distance while driving—slower in normal times, but essential for timely braking in emergencies.
4. Do AI agents need to be “friction-free”? Don’t lose the final line of “disapproval”
The most appealing aspect of AI agents (such as those that can automatically transfer funds or operate equipment) is their “friction-free” operation. You say “transfer money to the supplier,” and they do it without you needing to confirm or enter information. However, when these agents handle high-risk tasks like finances or equipment, “friction-free” operation can be dangerous.
The manual confirmation steps of the past (like double-checking before a transfer) served as a safety barrier. In the era of AI agents, we need to retain a final check before execution—for example, the system should confirm again: “Is the account correct? Is the amount right? Is the current state suitable for the transfer?” Even if 99.99% of transactions go through smoothly, that 0.01% of rejections could prevent significant losses. We cannot eliminate this safety measure just because the interception rate is low—just as we can’t block a fire escape, even though we never expect to use it.
In conclusion
Efficiency ensures smooth daily operations, while security ensures a way out in extreme situations. Some things should never be measured by their daily usage; it’s better if you never need them, but a well-designed system will never disable them.