Slashdot Mirror
When Mercedes-Benz Starts Selling Self-Driving Cars, It Will Prioritize Driver's Safety Over Pedestrian's (inverse.com)
From a report on Inverse: When Mercedes-Benz starts selling self-driving cars, it will choose to prioritize driver safety over pedestrians', a company manager has confirmed. The ethical conundrum of how A.I.-powered machines should act in life-or-death situations has received more scrutiny as driverless cars become a reality, but the car manufacturer believes that it's safer to save the life you have greater control over. "You could sacrifice the car. You could, but then the people you've saved initially, you don't know what happens to them after that in situations that are often very complex, so you save the ones you know you can save," said Christoph von Hugo, Mercedes' manager of driver assistance systems. "If you know you can save at least one person, at least save that one. Save the one in the car. This moral question of whom to save: 99 percent of our engineering work is to prevent these situations from happening at all. We are working so our cars don't drive into situations where that could happen and [will] drive away from potential situations where those decisions have to be made."As long as they are better at driving and safety than humans, it is a progress, in my opinion.
I'm working on self-walking pedestrian Gatling guns. Guess what *it* prioritizes?
"As long as they are better at driving and safety than humans, it is a progress, in my opinion." ?
99% of time, the correct action is to stop. If a crash is unavoidable though, if you are solely concerned about the safety of the passenger, then it is safer for the passenger to hit a soft target like a crowd of people than something hard like a telephone pole. The passenger is much more likely to survive hitting a person than a brick wall but a human will usually choose the wall.
S-class & AMG Models: Maximum driver and driver property prioritization.
E-class models: Minor driver prioritization, slightly better than 50/50 odds
C-class models: Pedestrian prioritization
Sounds logical to me. Otherwise, why would I pay Mercedes-Benz to save other people? I am not an altruist and don't inspire to be one in life&death situations.
as long as long as the plutocrats and their champagne caviar cocktails arrive safely. Somehow I think Marketing and Legal will want to rework that presentation. And BTW, I'm pretty sure Pedestrians (in the US) have right of way in just about every situation. So deliberately programming the car to violate that is saying you don't care what harm you do. Legal may not be happy with that either.
Saving the occupants of the car is the only choice that makes sense in the context of potentially malicious input. For instance, if Mercedes stated that their car would swerve into a tree instead of hitting a crowd of 5 pedestrians, what's to stop me and 4 friends from jumping out in front of the cars just to laugh as it crashes itself to "save" us.
We have got to start embedding deep into the mind of every software engineer that any information from outside your system can be manipulated to cause maximum damage or disruption. It is your system's responsibility to safely handle malformed and malicious inputs. Until this becomes a common mode of thought, expect more IoT botnets, SQL injections, buffer overflows, DOS amplifiers and the entire realm of "oh crap someone somewhere could be evil, I only engineered for the happy case".
There really is no other logical way to approach this. If they went the other way and prioritized the pedestrian, a psychopath could sprint back and forth across a busy freeway, causing accident after accident and injuring or killing lots of innocent passengers.
Seriously, makes sense as Pedestrians and Cyclists should be looking out for themselves as part of the activity of walking.
Good to see some thought going into this.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Self-Driving Car Ethics
If cars prioritized pedestrian safety over that of the driver, I can see a "challenge" developing where the same kind of morons who get burned in those "how much cinnamon can you swallow" games step in front of self-driving cars at the last second to see how close they can come to getting killed and/or how much damage they can inflict on a vehicle forced to avoid them.
They'd probably call it "Bullfighting", or something similar.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If there's malicious input, then the driver is the problem. Stop and lock the car. If the car has been compromised, then any focus on safety must be assumed to also be compromised. Do everything possible to stop and lock the car.
The above post deserves to be seen. It is the only logical response to the power-trip fantasies otherwise being proposed in this thread. Anything else makes Mercedes-Benz liable as a company.
Talk is easy, I'd like to see some example how the self driving car would actually perform in those freak accident situations, especially in cases where it could avoid them by going outside the traffic rules (e.g. dodge a truck by driving into the grass or reversing).
No automatic driving car is better than a human, and that will always be true regardless of transportation method.
Dream on. Humans fall asleep, they get drunk, they get suicidal, and they drive distracted.
You both have fantasies
You have delusions.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This is common sense. All the self driving car moral bullshit...
I agree but the problem here is the law which can rarely be accused of following common sense. A reasonable person would look at the number of lives saved by the car and decide that this was, on average, a very good thing. The law will look at one instance where a life was lost and, unlike a "gut reaction" of human will show that this was a calculated decision (I expect pre-meditated might even be used) to kill a pedestrian and will then sue the manufacturer who has far deeper pockets than the driver.
While the law can be changed I expect most politicians will be very wary about passing a law which might appear to declare open season on pedestrians...or at least I expect that is how the other problem, the media, will present it.
Human drivers prioritize their own lives above the lives of others. So, this is just equivalent on that front. Once the software is better at driving than humans, it will be a net win all-around anyway.
For more than a hundred years, millions of cars have shared the roads, driven by people who prioritize their own safety in an emergency, because self-preservation is part of human nature. Around that, codes and conventions have been built. That assumption is baked in every piece of existing infrastructure and equipment, and it's baked in the way human drivers that will soon share the roads with AIs, react to circumstances and the environment. It would actually be unsafe to turn around that assumption for part of the vehicles on the road.
There really is no other logical way to approach this. If they went the other way and prioritized the pedestrian, a psychopath could sprint back and forth across a busy freeway, causing accident after accident and injuring or killing lots of innocent passengers.
I agree with the first statement but your argument does not hold water because with this priority setting that same psychopath can now just drive back and forth setting up situations in which the car mow down pedestrians. The problem here is that you have a psychopath, it has nothing to do with the decisions made by the car.
This is also evolution. But instead of using trial-and-error starting with a few chemicals which happened to be at the right place at the right time, it is intelligence-driven evolution starting with the knowledge gained through all that original evolution.
And the gazelle never drove a car. Driving is only a few generations old. That comparison is a huge stretch.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
The question of what AI prioritizes as it becomes ubiquitous technology is a matter of life and death for some people in the future.
There are far more important things to worry about, and Mercedes is correct in their assessment that the value added work to be performed is in avoiding these situations altogether. The percentage of actual auto accidents in which there is some moral conundrum that requires a decision as to which person or persons is going to die are vanishingly small. There is almost never a situation in which the only path to safety is through the crowd...
GP is right. Philosophy is for those who can't actually *DO*. Philosophers try to make up for that lacking by trying to tell others what they "should" do.
To all those liberal arts majors out there, progress is made by the scientists and engineers who roll up their sleeves and do the work, not that wank all idiots who sit and talk about it all day. If you want some say in what gets done, then be one of the people who does the work, otherwise shut up sit down and enjoy the ride because you're going to be a passenger in your own life.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Engineers are and must be ethical, and that is part of the actual professional licensing requirements. Go away kid.
For instance, if Mercedes stated that their car would swerve into a tree instead of hitting a crowd of 5 pedestrians, what's to stop me and 4 friends from jumping out in front of the cars just to laugh as it crashes itself to "save" us.
How about the same thing that stops you dropping rocks on cars from a bridge over a road? You know, basic ethics and the consequences of breaking the law. In your example the problem is you and your psychopathic fiends, not the decision made by the car. The best arguments for the self preserving algorithm is that this is what a human driver will instinctually do so it is no worse in causing deaths than a human (and given the far faster reaction time almost certainly far better) and that nobody will ever buy a car that ranks their own lives below that of everyone else around.
The side effect of your Mercedes choosing to impact the young mother with her baby stroller instead of the nearby telephone pole (ouch! that could hurt!) is that the customer's testicles fall off, and his dick never rises for the rest of his miserable, injury-free life (female customers sensibly snipped the wires on this pathetic contraction long ago).
The Mercedes survivor can always tell his disappointed women, "not MY fault, the Mercedes made me do it". Mercedes! Modestly dressed women cross themselves. Everyone spits.
All this spit makes the sidewalks dangerous to navigate for the common folk, but we can all rest safe knowing that the privileged remain comfy and cozy inside their steel cocoons.
Actually I got my degree in engineering, nice try moron. By the way that's what AI prioritization decisions are, engineering. You wouldn't understand that, obviously.
Three things:
First, if you had truly understood the engineering you were learning in school, then it would have gotten through to you pretty quick that from an engineering standpoint, one human is as good as another, and you solve the problem in front of you, not worry about a problem that can't easily be translated into the engineering domain and has very little value there anyways. Engineering is about affecting maximum results for minimum cost. The task of trying to decide which particular set of humans to save in a catastrophic event is something straight out of sci-fi and fantasy, and has no bearing on the real world. The task of framing such a decision into a structure that would even allow for a computational model to make such a decision is monumental. Those resources could be far better spent elsewhere. Engineering is all about the bottom line. They don't save people, they make things statistically safer. If you can't understand the difference, you have no business as an engineer.
Second: You will find it near impossible to convince anyone of anything when you repeatedly use personal attacks and insults where they are neither warranted nor useful. Any time spent at all in any liberal arts should teach you that you don't influence people by being an ass.
Third, if you want to be taken seriously in any adult conversation, put you name to what you say. I fully support a persons right to anonymity, but I have found that people who know their name wont be on something put very little effort into adding quality to their work, and people who see a statement made anonymously will discount it as worthless garbage (and rightly so in most cases).
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
You still think of computers as magic boxes don't you?
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
My god you are stupid. Seriously go open one of your textbooks and go sit in a corner trying to read until you understand something new.
You just described 99.9% of humans driving. People tend to see one car in 1000 doing something stupid and attribute that to all humans. You don't realize how many drivers you come into contact with in a day.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What percentage of humans is that? 0.0001%? If driving was statistically dangerous people wouldn't do it. But he fact is, you have very little chance of being in a traffic accident.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
>> As long as they are better at driving and safety than humans, it is a progress, in my opinion.
Well, in my opinion, everyone seems to be too quick to presume all automated cars are necessarily safer than all drivers.
Its probably actually true for some people in the US at least but not everyone. On my commute I frequently see people (especially women) texting and driving at the same time, even on the freeway. For example on Friday evening in rush hour I saw a lone female Lexus driver (illegally) in HOV lane (illegally) doing about 80mph while (illegally) texting with both thumbs, no hands on the wheel, hardly even glancing forward.
I would suggest that most human drivers' instinct would be to avoid collisions (swerve instinct) and to protect themselves if possible.
Mercedes should have framed this like "we worked with various DoTs and insurance companies and did an analysis of many common human-driver car crash scenarios and analyzed what human drivers typically do, and what the outcomes were. We then engineered our car to try to have similar priorities (and overall outcomes that are at least as good) w/r/t trying to avoid damage to persons and property."
Walking is the most basic form of human transportation and the risks associated with it should be lowest.
When someone choses to get into a vehicle they should understand that they are assuming the risks associated with such a machine. They are getting into something that travels so fast that should it crash, they risk serious injury or death. If self-driving cars prioritize the safety of the occupants over others, then it is transferring what should be that persons assumed risk onto others.
There are comments about malicious intent here too. They say a pedestrian could run into the road to cause a self-driving car to crash. What if someone were to cause an unexpected obstruction in the road so that self-preserving AI cars would swerve to miss it and run over the pedestrian? Malicious intent can work against the pedestrians too. There is no fail safe option to the choice of occupant prioritization or pedestrian prioritization. Again, it is the person in the car that should assume the risks of high speed travel, not the pedestrian.
Road traffic surveys for anti-texting laws deny that claim. Last I heard when my city was debating an anti-texting ordinance, about half of drivers are distracted to a degree sufficient to impair their response in an emergency. Our saving grace is that emergencies are relatively rare.
Who would you prioritize, and why should the others not hate your guts and call you names as a result?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Well that's the fault of your city for not creating anti-texting laws yet.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If I paid for the car you can be damn sure I want it to prioritize my safety over some outsider's. Particularly since they may have caused the problem themselves (assuming that the car AI has very high safety). Imagine if it was the opposite: anybody could jump in front of the car and laugh as it swerves and crashes into a tree to avoid you...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Since the occupants of the vehicle will have no input (except possibly as witnesses, but probably worse witnesses that the vehicles instruments and recorders) there will be nobody in the frame for liability except those who were killed or injured by the collision and the organisation who defined the vehicle's behaviour in that situation.
If that court finds there was any way that the vehicle makers could have avoided the "accident", they will assign liability and costs. So we can expect that on the one hand will be the technical, legal andfinancial might of an international, multi-billion-$$$ company - and on the other the grieving (and possibly penniless) family of the injured party. It doesn't take a genius to see which way that "justice" will go (in the USA, at least - other countries will find differently).
However, once a vehicle's occupant is the one making a claim, exactly the same power dynamic will come into play. But this time in reverse: with the company claiming that the occupant suffered because the vehicle took a decision in favour of the safety of others, I guess the case law and the whole future of the self-driving car's legal position will be decided by who wins, what claim, first?
It will come down to a flip of the coin. Sounds like it will be a good time to become a lawyer - just make sure you pick the right side.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
People won't buy a car that will drive itself off a Cliff if someone tosses a human shaped meatbag on the road.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
You're wrong. Read this: https://www.nspe.org/resources...
The GP's example was of one where the malicious input was from someone other than the driver.
Actually no, drivers and pedestrians are not 1:1 in legal terms when designing a system of AI prioritization, that's an over simplistic glossing-over of the actual problem.
No wonder you aren't an engineer.
We have them. The point was the study done beforehand to see how bad the problem actually was. And making it illegal has helped, but it's still a pervasive problem.
Again, if driving was that dangerous, people wouldn't do it. Everyone who gets in an accident has accepted the risk. The problem with SDCs are that you don't have the option to accept anything; if the car screws up it screws up and what you do or don't do during driving doesn't matter and it should unless the SDC is perfect.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The above post deserves to be seen. It is the only logical response to the power-trip fantasies otherwise being proposed in this thread. Anything else makes Mercedes-Benz liable as a company.
I'm not sure you understand liability, but at least in the US, if a person recklessly or maliciously jumped out in front of traffic, a driver is not liable if that person is hit. Ethically, the driver should try to avoid it, if doing so would not risk his own life, but that's not legally mandatory.
And this is not a power-trip, it's just a simple point that the car has to distinguish between hitting people that were unfortunately in the way of an accident versus hitting people that deliberately or wantonly put themselves in danger. The ethics of those two situations are quite different, in a way that we all surely understand.
You failed at studying law, and at even understanding reality. There is nothing except a stop or go command, and the autonomous cars fail even at doing that.
No cotton gin is better than a human, that will always be true regardless of fabric material.
Auto-anything is a poor substitute for the billions of years of evolution.
You have the choice to get in the car, same as today. If SDC is better than most humans --- and we're very close to that --- then most humans should be in an SDC. And the more SDCs there are, the fewer accidents because they all know how each other will react -- no sudden erratic changes of mind about lanes!
> If driving was statistically dangerous people wouldn't do it.
It is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
People just decide it's worth the risk to get done what they do in a car.
You sound like a punch card operator afraid to lose his job. It means humans can move on to doing *something else* with our time rather than driving.
Well, no.
Pedestrian makes a mistake : pedestrian is dead.
Driver makes a mistake : pedestrian is dead.
Notice something?
I just don't believe people should give up their freedom to drive in a way that is safely for them, to have a machine do it which may or may not be safer for them.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The way I see it is simple, you can't sell a car saying:"allright, if the vehicle that you are paying for ever gets in a situation where it has to choose between hitting someone or crashing itself and killing you, it will kill you..."
Well at least I wouldn't buy that car... I don't know about everyone else...
Well, I have seen no evidence that we are 'close to that' since there has yet to be a car that attempts to drive without a human present. Furthermore, most humans will not be in an SDC because they will be unaffordable for the foreseeable future. Also, SDCs cannot be making any mistakes that any particular driver would not make. Some drivers are perfectly safe drivers and would never get in an accident. It is unfair to expect them to use SDCs because you are exposing them to additional risk.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Presuming the car is only driving where cars should be driving, any situation where the car would need to "sacrafice" the driver for a pedestrian is where the pedestrian has done something stupid, such as stepping out onto a highway.
While I certainly hope the car would avoid even the stupidest pedestrians, quite simply if you step out onto a highway, you should expect to become bug-splatter.
I would be enraged if some one ran out onto the road and my car drove me into a pole avoiding them. I certainly wouldn't buy a car that planned on this. and I would modify (even if illegal) my car if it were mandatory. I would certainly vote any politician out of office who pushed for this.
Some might argue, "What about kids chasing balls?" again, I hope the car would do something reasonable to avoid said child, but given the choice between me and the improperly parented child... well darwin will handle this one.
My theory on this is very simple. At first there will still be accidents caused by driverless cars. But the data gathered by the driverless cars will easily be enough to reproduce those accidents. With each accident, a team of brilliant engineers will pour over the data and figure out how to deal with that accident. It wont only be solved for that accident but the changes will be tested against a zillion hours of difficult data to make sure that the new code doesn't cause new accidents. All cars will then get an upgrade and will now be safer.
After a while the driverless cars will have hit a point where solving for the tiny remaining number of edge cases will actually reduce overall safety. But these edge cases will be so few and far between that they will make national news when they happen. Thus, the stats behind driverless cars will be so extraordinarily safe that for a single human driver to "prove" that they are safer would take lifetimes of flawless driving to prove. This number will only spread as time grows.
I would not be surprised if the experimental driverless cars are in the top 1% of the top 1% of drivers in the world.
The key being that a single driver gets to accumulate only their own stats, while 1,000,000 driverless cars will do more than a taxi driver's lifetime driving nearly every day or so.
Then to make it worse, we meatbags are variable. Even the best driver in the world with a flawless record, might be forced to drive in non-optimal conditions. They haven't slept in a few days, they are sick, and a sudden emergency forces them to drive someone to the hospital. None of that applies to a driverless car.
For instance. I have a 20+ year flawless driving record. Part of that is that I know not to drive when I have not slept well the night before, or any time between 1am and 7am.
One other bit is that driverless cars will soon have some interesting abilities. Things such as gathering data from other driverless cars. Thus if something has dropped onto the highway, one driverless car can alert the rest about it. Or if one car hits a surprising icy slick, it will not only notify other cars, it will start to build a pattern of when that road is icy. These would be the few initial areas where people would be better; where you know that a certain intersection seems to have ice on it in these conditions. Or observing the behavior of other cars to possibly be alerted to problem such as trash on the road.
We'll have SDCs all over the roads within 10 years. We can pick this conversation up at that point.
You don't realize how many drivers you come into contact with in a day.
I'm pretty sure that, on average, I come into contact with zero drivers a day. Sheesh, how bad a driver are you?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that all automated cars will be safer than most human drivers eventually. I don't think anyone really thinks that they're safer than even a somewhat-below-average human driver yet
These are the comments? Blame pedestrians, imagine pseudo-logical scenarios blinded by lack of self-awareness, and the apparently in-vogue 'fuck everybody else'? May God save your souls before the devil welcomes you all into hell.
I actually keep a loose track of this in my head. I ride a motorcycle so face life threatening situations more often than when I drive.
My daily commute is a 35km round trip. Because I like to go fast, I interact with at least 100 other drivers each trip, whether I'm passing them, or they are pulling out in front of me etc. In the average week I might get one interesting event, which means out of roughly a thousand interactions there is one that is the result of sub-optimal driving (ie 1 in 1000). Out of those, less than half are due to stupidity, most are just unlucky (ie come around a blind corner and someone is changing lanes, or two vehicles change lanes simultaneously resulting in an emergency brake event.
So yeah, 99.95% of people are doing ok most of the time. 0.025% make honest mistakes and 0.025% probably could do with more training.
"As long as they are better at driving and safety than humans, it is a progress, in my opinion."
I'm not convinced. Right now, when people die in car crashes, and I can blame a human driver for something, then it's totally understandable. When humans die by the hands of other humans, and especially through the errors of other humans, that's just a reality that I can comprehend and accept.
But when a self-driving car is ultimately responsible for killing a human, that's a different thing entirely. That's a lot closer to just humans-get-killed-at-random scenario. That's not something that I can accept.
It's actually even worse than that. It's like a neighbourhood pet dog kills a neighbour. If your typically-well-behaved-and-friendly boxer suddenly kills your neighbour's teenager one day, what happens? Look, your dog killed one neighbour over the course of thirty years of you owning dogs. Most wild animals are far more dangerous than that. But I think we all know what happens. I think your dog is dead pretty quickly -- even if that teenager provoked your dog; even if it was a lot; even if your dog was defending its own life.
I accept, today, that millions of humans driving millions of cars on millions of roads, kills thousands of people every year. I'm not happy about it, but I accept it as a part of humans being free to not be perfect. But I don't think that I'd be accepting of millions of self-driving cars on millions of roads, killing dozens of people every year.
Most instances where you have kids "jumping out in front of cars", you're talking about parking lots or side roads where the kids didn't look both ways before trying to cross the intersection. It's not something that should really ever happen on a highway or interstate where you've usually got fences, a thick tree line, or other things blocking easy access to get onto the highway by way of walking up to it.
The car will probably try to slow down as much as possible, if not come to a complete stop. At most - that would bump the kid(s) but not seriously injure them. Perhaps it would even turn to avoid them while slowing down, since it would know it wasn't going to flip the vehicle at that relatively slow rate of speed.
MB Builds cars, which they sell to passengers. If MB announced that pedestrian safety was paramount over passenger safety, how many people would borrow tens of thousands of dollars to buy a MB vehicle only to be put at greater risk than someone that didn't buy a car.
I can just imagine the advertising campaign: "Everyone is more important to us than our customers."
Ken
The ID of the "kid" is 321193, yours is 668651. I wonder who is the kid.
More seriously, you should avoid using this kind of childish insult. It only makes you look immature.
Have gnu, will travel.
Because if they do, they will find that they cannot get their cars legally on the roads or insured. But what they will to is lie to their customers to make them feel safe. As the incidents where this will be a concern are rare enough, nobody will notice for a long time. After that, a balanced solution that minimizes overall damage (the only really defensible approach in a society with equality of its citizens) will be generally accepted and they can admit that they did that all along.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Who is going to buy a car that puts the life of somebody else above your own? How would that conversation go at the dealership?
Salesguy: Yeah, the autopilot is great. Especially for pedestrians.
Buyer: The autopilot sounds gr... wait, what? What was that about the pedestrians?
Salesguy: Oh, if it thinks it is about to run over a pedestrian, it will swerve off of the road. Possibly off a bridge or into a solid object like a tree or something, possibly killing you in the process. Makes thing safer for pedestrians.
Buyer: Well, what about me? Why am I being sacrificed? Shouldn't it just come to a stop as fast as it can and try to save us both? After all, I'm the one that paid for the car.
Salesguy: But it might not stop in time and kill the pedestrian. We can't have that.
Buyer: I'm, uh, going to go check out the next dealership. Bye!
Algorithms don't deal in philosophy or value judgments. They deal with things like angles, speed, and the car's capabilities.
The scenarios are so contrived it doesn't even make sense to argue them. Mostly, they are based on reckless driving scenarios, which self-driving cars won't engage in in the first place. By human standards, they will be overly cautious. These so-called moral dilemmas won't actually happen in such a way that the car can make such a decision. Any real-life decisions of this type are likely to be beyond the ability of the car itself to make a rational choice, it will usually just have to hit the brakes.
The driver and passengers are protected by chassis and safety devices, the pedestrian is fully exposed.
Wrong decision Mercedes,
crash the car, you can buy another,
the occupants will probably be safe,
save the pedestrian
Does this make the programmer responsible for the pedestrians death?
Go well
A brutal brake to avoid a pedestrian may become a medium threat to the passenger. Will you reduce the strength of the brake at the expense of hitting pedestrians to avoid hurting passengers ? We are handling probabilities, no absolute certitudes.
There is a runaway trolley. It is heading towards an empty stretch of track, where it will stop harmlessly. On the other branch are a group of or philosophy students. Do you switch to kill the philosophers?
Meanwhile, AI at competetior BMW is being trained using GTA ...
...I was thinking that the attitude displayed by Mercedes was more like a BMW driver's attitude.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How do you know this? You're making the same large generalization.
>> I would not be surprised if the experimental driverless cars are in the top 1% of the top 1% of drivers in the world.
Keep drinking the koolaid. Self driving cars have had plenty of accidents, such as these:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/2...
And they can't drive at faster than 25mph.
I drive consistently faster than the speed limit and haven't had a car accident in the last 30 years or so. Does that make me better than the 1% of the 1% (presumably of that 1%)?
So the car manufacturer decided to prioritize the guy giving them money instead of the guy that doesn't even have a car.
Shocker!
If you think about this, there really isn't another option. Would you buy a car that wasn't going to prioritize your life in the event of a crash?
...can we back up and talk about the almost innumerable variables that would have to go into the decision here? One passenger - one pedestrian = relatively short lost of things to consider. One passenger and ten pedestrians = not so much. How is the priority weighed? Is kinetic energy transfer factored into the decision? I will wager that it is not, nor are most of the variables that would affect outcomes. So just what is Mercedes talking about?
It is unethical to let a sucker keep his money. So 'check'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Is there any way I can kill them in a slower and more painful way?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What am I supposed to do with this insightful information?