Slashdot Mirror
Drivers Prefer Autonomous Cars That Don't Kill Them (hothardware.com)
"A new study shows that most people prefer that self-driving cars be programmed to save the most people in the event of an accident, even if it kills the driver," reports Information Week. "Unless they are the drivers." Slashdot reader MojoKid quotes an article from Hot Hardware about the new study, which was published by Science magazine.
So if there is just one passenger aboard a car, and the lives of 10 pedestrians are at stake, the survey participants were perfectly fine with a self-driving car "killing" its passenger to save many more lives in return. But on the flip side, these same participants said that if they were shopping for a car to purchase or were a passenger, they would prefer to be within a vehicle that would protect their lives by any means necessary. Participants also balked at the notion of the government stepping in to regulate the "morality brain" of self-driving cars.
The article warns about a future where "a harsh AI reality may whittle the worth of our very existence down to simple, unemotional percentages in a computer's brain." MIT's Media Lab is now letting users judge for themselves, in a free online game called "Moral Machine" simulating the difficult decisions that might someday have to be made by an autonomous self-driving car.
The article warns about a future where "a harsh AI reality may whittle the worth of our very existence down to simple, unemotional percentages in a computer's brain." MIT's Media Lab is now letting users judge for themselves, in a free online game called "Moral Machine" simulating the difficult decisions that might someday have to be made by an autonomous self-driving car.
That sounds anything but simple.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Come back to me when you have *realistic* scenarios.
Indeed. One of the things that was covered in my motorcycle safety class was the concept of 'traction management'.
To keep it simple, depending on the type and condition of the road and your tires, you only have so much traction. It takes traction capability to do anything - speed up, slow down, or turn. It was part of them teaching us that you are not to brake in a turn on a motorcycle. Cars can get away with that, bikes(pushed to limit) can't. You brake, then turn. If you need to stop during a turn, you straighten and brake.
Anyways, to get back to the point - it takes traction to turn. For motorcycles and cars, they covered that it's better to brake than to dodge for any substantial obstacle - if you have the luxury of dodging it, you could have braked to stop hitting it.
So, in the situations mentioned, they're stuck using trains, which have stopping distances that no car maker would be allowed to release a vehicle with. Short of the langoliers being behind you eating everything, braking is pretty much the universal solution.
I don't read AC A human right
Driving involves making life an death decisions every day. People don't like to think about it.
The emergency instruction you have provided "Stop as quickly as possible to avoid hitting thing" will work in 70%-80% of all emergencies. In many cases "Stop as quickly as possible" will not solve the problem.
The next option could be "Swerve around impediment/obstacle" so the car drives around objects that you can't stop for (moving debris, running people, swerving cars/bikes/motorcycles). The swerve option may be safer for the traffic pattern than a crash stop. You need to prevent being rear ended as well.
These two directives alone can probably take care of 95% of the issues out there. Stop or go around the problem. The issues arise in the last 5% where the two directives conflict with each other. Easy scenario: There is oncoming traffic in the oncoming lane, a person/child steps out from behind a visual obstruction (signage, truck, etc). The person has stepped into your path of travel and is inside your braking distance. If you continue straight you will hit the person, If you swerve left you will hit an oncoming car, If you swerve right you will swerve into an obstruction (car, lamp post, etc).
I don't expect you have an answer for this no-win-scenario. People have to recognize that 5% where something bad is going to happen; and there is some choice/action that can be taken that will affect the outcome (number of people injured, types of injuries, etc). This is the problem that people are trying to wrestle with. You are presented with an ugly-no-win-scenario. Make the best of it and decide who gets killed, injured, maimed or saved - Yourself, the pedestrian, another driver?
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.