Slashdot Mirror


Selectable Ethics For Robotic Cars and the Possibility of a Robot Car Bomb

Rick Zeman writes Wired has an interesting article on the possibility of selectable ethical choices in robotic autonomous cars. From the article: "The way this would work is one customer may set the car (which he paid for) to jealously value his life over all others; another user may prefer that the car values all lives the same and minimizes harm overall; yet another may want to minimize legal liability and costs for herself; and other settings are possible. Philosophically, this opens up an interesting debate about the oft-clashing ideas of morality vs. liability." Meanwhile, others are thinking about the potential large scale damage a robot car could do.

Lasrick writes Patrick Lin writes about a recent FBI report that warns of the use of robot cars as terrorist and criminal threats, calling the use of weaponized robot cars "game changing." Lin explores the many ways in which robot cars could be exploited for nefarious purposes, including the fear that they could help terrorist organizations based in the Middle East carry out attacks on US soil. "And earlier this year, jihadists were calling for more car bombs in America. Thus, popular concerns about car bombs seem all too real." But Lin isn't too worried about these threats, and points out that there are far easier ways for terrorists to wreak havoc in the US.

26 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Hi welcome to Jonny Cab by garlicbready · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hope you enjoyed the ride ha ha

  2. Insurance rates by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder whether your insurance company would demand to know how you have set your car, and adjust your rates accordingly?

    1. Re:Insurance rates by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hahahahahahahahaha. No, they won't. They will keep themselves around through lobbying efforts.

    2. Re:Insurance rates by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More likely that your insurance company would enforce the settings on your car and require that you pay them extra if you'd like the car to value your life over other lives.

      With fast networks it's even possible that the insurance companies could bid on outcomes as the accident was happening. Theoretically my insurer could throw my car into a ditch to avoid damage to a bmw coming the other way.

    3. Re:Insurance rates by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You will still be required to have car insurance (whether because of some actual need or because of lobbying from the insurance industry). Your rates might lower a bit to give you an incentive to get a car that drives itself, but they won't plummet. Less accidents/claims will just mean that the insurance companies will wind up with more profits. Which means more money to spend lobbying the government to require auto insurance and robot cars which means more profits. Rinse. Repeat.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Insurance rates by pla · · Score: 4, Informative

      There in principle cannot be a car insurance market if cars don't crash anymore.

      In the past 15 years, I have invoked my car insurance three times, and haven't had a single accident in that time.

      Insurance covers more than just liability - It covers a small rock falling from a dump-truck and breaking your windshield; it covers your car getting stolen; some policies even act as a sort of extended warranty, covering repair or replacement costs in the event of a breakdown.

      And, even with a hypothetically "perfect" driver, some accidents will still happen - Front tire blowout at 75MPH in dense traffic, deer running from the woods into the road 10ft in front of you, construction debris falling from an overpass, etc. Driverless cars will probably handle these events better than live humans do, but such events will still happen.

      All of that said, I would love for you to have it 100% correct, because I fucking loathe insurance companies, and deeply resent the government forcing me to pay them in order to drive. I just don't realistically see it happening.

  3. Blue Screen of Death... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

    BSOD starts to take on a whole new meaning..

    As does, crash dump, interrupt trigger, dirty block and System Panic...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Blue Screen of Death... by jpvlsmv · · Score: 4, Funny
      You're right, officer, Clippy should not have been driving.

      Now, what to do when my Explorer crashes...

      Click on the Start button, go to "All Programs", then go to "Brakes", right-click on the "Apply Brakes" button, and choose "Run as Administrator". After the 15-second splash screen (now with Ads by Bing), choose "Decelerate Safely".

  4. Re:Drivers already have variable ethics by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because ethicists like making work for themselves -- it's unethical to wait for another disaster or human rights violation just so you can do more work!

  5. Scare of the day by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear government, Please shut up bout terrorism and get out of the way of innovation. sincerely, informed citizen

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  6. Automation, remote controls already exist by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's skip "car" because I can, in theory, attach enough explosives(and shrapnel) to kill a large number of people to a simple homemade quadrotor, run with open source software, give it a dead-reckoning path and fire and forget from a relatively inconspicuous location. Multiple simultaneously, if I have the amount of resources a car bomb would require.

    Automation is here. Being paranoid about one particular application of it won't help anyone.

  7. Philosophy Settings by timrod · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, cannot wait for the day when I can set my car's logic system to different ethical settings, sorted by philosopher. For instance, you can set your car to "Jeremy Bentham", which will automatically choose whoever looks less useful to ram into when in a crash situation. You could also set it to "Plato", which will cause the car to ram into whoever appears less educated (just hope it doesn't happen to be you).

    Just make sure you don't set the car to "Nietzsche".

    1. Re:Philosophy Settings by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm looking forward to the Ayn Rand setting. "Me first!!"

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:Philosophy Settings by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Informative

      I, for one, cannot wait for the day when I can set my car's logic system to different ethical settings, sorted by philosopher.

      I just tried the Plato setting and now I'm stuck in a cave. Thanks Joe!

  8. MUCH easier. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Do you remember that day when you lost your mind? You aimed your car at five random people down the road.

    WTF?!? That makes no sense.

    Thankfully, your autonomous car saved their lives by grabbing the wheel from you and swerving to the right.

    Again, WTF?!? Who would design a machine that would take control away from a person TO HIT AN OBSTACLE? That's a mess of legal responsibility.

    This scene, of course, is based on the infamous "trolley problem" that many folks are now talking about in AI ethics.

    No. No they are not. The only "many folks" who are talking about it are people who have no concept of what it takes to program a car.

    Or legal liability.

    Itâ(TM)s a plausible scene, since even cars today have crash-avoidance features: some can brake by themselves to avoid collisions, and others can change lanes too.

    No, it is not "plausible". Not at all. You are speculating on a system that would be able to correctly identify ALL THE OBJECTS IN THE AREA and that is never going to happen.

    Wired is being stupid in TFA.

    1. Re:MUCH easier. by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are speculating on a system that would be able to correctly identify ALL THE OBJECTS IN THE AREA and that is never going to happen.

      It doesn't have to identify all the objects in the area, it simply has to not hit them.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:MUCH easier. by Shoten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are speculating on a system that would be able to correctly identify ALL THE OBJECTS IN THE AREA and that is never going to happen.

      It doesn't have to identify all the objects in the area, it simply has to not hit them.

      Actually, since the whole question of TFA is about ethical choices, it does have to identify them. It can't view a trash can as being equal to a child pedestrian, for example. It will have to see the difference between a dumpster (hit it, nobody inside dies) and another car (hit it, someone inside it may die). It may even need to weigh the potential occupancy of other vehicles...a bus is likely to hold more people than a scooter.

      The question at its heart is not about object avoidance in the article...it's about choices between objects. And that requires identification.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    3. Re:MUCH easier. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given a choice, I think autonomous cars at some point WILL be programmed with such a choice. For example, hitting an elderly person in order to avoid hitting a small child.

      Congratulations. Your product just injured Senator Somebody in order to avoid hitting a Betsy-wetsy doll.

      Senator Somebody has filed "lawsuit" against your company. It is super-effective. All your assets are belong to him.

  9. FBI: 1, Ethics: 0 by some+old+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, the FBI is already making the case for, "We need full monitoring and control intervention capability for everybody's new cars, because terrorists."

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  10. Re:Drivers already have variable ethics by maliqua · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not really sure why they call it 'ethics of the car' not ethics of the owner or programmer, or administrator of the car.

    If you put a bomb in a robot car and had tell it to drive to a statium, the car didn't fail to make an ethical choice. I doubt the car would even be aware of the bomb, or what a bomb is, or why its bad.

  11. Re:Fuck people! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Judging from Monday morning traffic in my town, a lot of people already set their cars to that setting.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:"Philosophically, this opens up an interesting by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just wait until the AI has to keep track of liability awards so that it can make the correct decision regarding minimizing liability. At some point you are going to have a stupid jury award and all the cars are just going to refuse to go anywhere because the AI's cost benefit analysis says "just stay in park".

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  13. Re:"Philosophically, this opens up an interesting by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. To minimize damage, you'd have to brake when approaching a child. To minimize liability, you have to accelerate when you notice that you can't stop in time to avoid severe injury, i.e. to ensure death which is cheaper than a lifetime cripple.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Will not matter. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder whether your insurance company would demand to know how you have set your car, and adjust your rates accordingly?

    That does not matter because it won't be an option.

    That is because "A.I." cars will never exist.

    They will not exist because they will have to start out as less-than-100%-perfect than TFA requires. And that imperfection will lead to mistakes.

    Those mistakes will lead to lawsuits. You were injured when a vehicle manufactured by "Artificially Intelligent Motors, inc (AIM, inc)" hit you by "choice". That "choice" was programmed into that vehicle at the demand of "AIM, inc" management.

    So no. No company would take that risk. And anyone stupid enough to try would not write perfect code and would be sued out of existence after their first patch.

  15. Re:Fuck people! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    First you'd need to root the car and run "echo 1 > /dev/morality/evil"

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. Re:Fuck people! by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny


    echo "chaotic_evil" > /proc/morality

    That's why it hasn't been working for you.

    There's also a kernel patch on evil.org to change the default setting. With the standard kernel, it is set to "lawful_neutral". In that mode, it will honk and swerve for a little old lady crossing the street.

    lawful_good would stop, and offer her a ride.

    chaotic_evil will run her over, back up and do it again, and the lower loot collection hook will deploy to take her purse.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.