Slashdot Mirror
In a Crash, Should Self-Driving Cars Save Passengers or Pedestrians? 2 Million People Weigh In (pbs.org)
In what is referred to as the "Moral Machine Experiment", a survey of more than two million people from nearly every country on the planet, people preferred to save humans over animals, young over old, and more people over fewer. From a report: Since 2016, scientists have posed this scenario to folks around the world through the "Moral Machine," an online platform hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that gauges how humans respond to ethical decisions made by artificial intelligence. On Wednesday, the team behind the Moral Machine released responses from more than two million people spanning 233 countries, dependencies and territories. They found a few universal decisions -- for instance, respondents preferred to save a person over an animal, and young people over older people -- but other responses differed by regional cultures and economic status.
The study's findings offer clues on how to ethically program driverless vehicles based on regional preferences, but the study also highlights underlying diversity issues in the tech industry -- namely that it leaves out voices in the developing world. The Moral Machine uses a quiz to give participants randomly generated sets of 13 questions. Each scenario has two choices: You save the car's passengers or you save the pedestrians. However, the characteristics of the passengers and pedestrians varied randomly -- including by gender, age, social status and physical fitness. What they found: The researchers identified three relatively universal preferences. On average, people wanted: to spare human lives over animals, save more lives over fewer, prioritize young people over old ones. When respondents' preferences did differ, they were highly correlated to cultural and economic differences between countries. For instance, people who were more tolerant of illegal jaywalking tended to be from countries with weaker governance, nations who had a large cultural distance from the U.S. and places that do not value individualism as highly. These distinct cultural preferences could dictate whether a jaywalking pedestrian deserves the same protection as pedestrians crossing the road legally in the event they're hit by a self-driving car. Further reading: The study; and MIT Technology Review.
The study's findings offer clues on how to ethically program driverless vehicles based on regional preferences, but the study also highlights underlying diversity issues in the tech industry -- namely that it leaves out voices in the developing world. The Moral Machine uses a quiz to give participants randomly generated sets of 13 questions. Each scenario has two choices: You save the car's passengers or you save the pedestrians. However, the characteristics of the passengers and pedestrians varied randomly -- including by gender, age, social status and physical fitness. What they found: The researchers identified three relatively universal preferences. On average, people wanted: to spare human lives over animals, save more lives over fewer, prioritize young people over old ones. When respondents' preferences did differ, they were highly correlated to cultural and economic differences between countries. For instance, people who were more tolerant of illegal jaywalking tended to be from countries with weaker governance, nations who had a large cultural distance from the U.S. and places that do not value individualism as highly. These distinct cultural preferences could dictate whether a jaywalking pedestrian deserves the same protection as pedestrians crossing the road legally in the event they're hit by a self-driving car. Further reading: The study; and MIT Technology Review.
A self driving car should protect its passengers first or they wouldn't sell. Who would willingly ride in a vehicle that would intentionally sacrifice their life for any reason?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Pedestrians are a dime a dozen. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. Walking around like hipster doofus jackholes. Stepping into the roadway like they own it. Nope.
How often has anyone ever been in a situation where they have to make such a choice? Once every trillion miles driven?
There's no reason why a self-driving car has to chose one or the other. Apply the breaks and don't hit anyone. But it's a false choice. The whole point of a self-driving vehicle is to eliminate the human error that causes most accidents.
For instance, people who were more tolerant of illegal jaywalking tended to be from countries with weaker governance, nations who had a large cultural distance from the U.S. and places that do not value individualism as highly. These distinct cultural preferences could dictate whether a jaywalking pedestrian deserves the same protection as pedestrians crossing the road legally in the event they're hit by a self-driving car.
Or perhaps just from one of the many countries where there is no crime such as "illegal jaywalking"?
The major cultural difference there is that the US is almost alone worldwide in that being illegal. In most parts of the world a pedestrian can cross wherever they want, defined crossings just give them a safer place to do so.
The car should swerve and wipe out as many ANONYMOUS COWARDS as possible.
There is no such "choice" that will ever be relevant.. The car should maintain itself in proscribed places of travel. If a pedestrian runs out in the street, it should apply the brakes and attempt to come to a stop as quickly as possible. This makes it so either the car will stop in time and the pedestrian will be fine, or the speed of impact will be minimized and so the pedestrian will receive less damage all while not setting off a chain reaction that could result in worse outcomes for someone else.
its the shrewd move.
The probability of a person being saved will be computed based on the relative bank balances of all endangered parties. Similar to the legal system today.
The fact is we're nowhere near giving cars the ability to reason or make judgements. This thought experiment is silly. Automated cars will follow a set of rules that maximize the likelihood of avoiding an accident, and, in the event, that an accident is inevitable, attempt to minimize the damage. For the most part, this doesn't mean choosing between saving a pedestrian and the passengers. For example, it doesn't make sense to program to make drastic attempts to save pedestrians. They should be treated the same as any other object: avoid hitting at all costs, but don't make insane maneuvers to avoid (to a point). If anyone accuses an automated car of making such a judgement should sue and find out just how boring the "logic" behind automation is.
ACs should be banned...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You never know for certain that a given course of action will cause a fatality. When you're driving, you try to avoid accident. Self-driving cars will do the same. They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds. It may be just a fraction of a percent less likely, but it will take that.
If machines are making these choices in the first place there is already a problem.
You can't run such a system if it is going to kill people. Triaging who is already a design fail.
That seems high
For instance, people who were more tolerant of illegal jaywalking tended to be from countries with weaker governance, nations who had a large cultural distance from the U.S. and places that do not value individualism as highly. These distinct cultural preferences could dictate whether a jaywalking pedestrian deserves the same protection as pedestrians crossing the road legally in the event they're hit by a self-driving car.
sounds like the authors are completely ignorant and bigoted at how most of the world works. People from other countries tend to be more tolerant of Jaywalking not because of cultural differences but because in most countries it is NOT ILLEGAL. So there is no difference to them to a pedestrian and a jaywalker, they are all just people on foot with the same rights. Hate to think how ignorant of the world the authors must be to come to the above conclusion.
thats but a start
Are the pedestrians paying attention to their surroundings or walking (or bicycling) while fixated on their phones? The latter group is going to end up as Darwin Award winners at some point anyway... (And, yes, I have seen people riding a bike while staring at their smartphone.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yes. As is apparent, I am NOT a fan of on-line anonymity. I truly consider speech that you can't be personally held accountable for to be the words of true cowards who have nothing of value to contribute to society. I will continue to rail against it.
nazi >> socialist >> hillary good job
No questionnaire can resolve this problem.
Cars must prioritize the safety of its occupants over everything else. If they do not, then people can murder others through machine logic without any hacking at all. Additionally, no computer will ever be advanced enough to know that the next decision it makes will be better or worse than just default saving it's occupants.
It is also immoral to evaluate lives based on worthless criteria like age, gender, political, racial, class, or religious ideology.
Just imagine a terrible scenario where a toddler running across a busy high speed road, every other car will prioritize the life of the toddler and potential mass murder everyone else riding in the cars in an attempt to save the toddler. A machine will never be able to predict what every other object around it is going to do in response to the decisions it makes.
Keep it simple as possible... object in path... hit the brakes... don't calculate the life values of the occupants vs road hazards. Each car behind them will do a much better job avoiding a massive catastrophe as cars try to dodge an erratic human that could be drunk, attempting suicide, acting stupid, losing their balance or falling off their bikes, scooters, or skateboards near traffic.
Car stays on road and uses brakes, One and DONE! Anything else will turn into an epic shit-show from time to time where a lot of people die in a massive logical unforeseen circumstance.
Really, its a click bait question. An automated car seeing a pedestrian it may collide with with will brake as hard as possible while avoiding other obstacles and staying in its prescribed lane. The chances of this happening as well as the car having to swerve into an obstacle that would also injure the driver is so small as to be irrelevant noise.
46137
Thomas Jefferson would disagree.
Trolley problems fail rigor because they make a critical assumption, an artificial intelligence is smart enough that it knows the results of two choices each with negative outcomes but is somehow not smart enough to have avoided that situation to begin with. An AI developer who is trying to produce the safest AI system possible is prioritizing the likely cases first and attempting to produce the best reaction in your typical crash. Nobody in development is concerned about the situation where you have a car speeding down a narrow road where a pedestrian steps out at just the right time and place where the only cause of actions is to crash into them or crash into a power pole. That situation is rare and shouldn't be optimized yet.
Let's say that we're worried about optimizing that situation now and we somehow have omniscient AI that still runs into this situation. Now our problem is probabilities. What's the probability that the pedestrian will survive jump out of the road in time and no crash will happen? What's the probability that the pedestrian will die from the crash? What's the probability that the passenger will die when if we swerve into the light pole? Who is going to be harmed by that falling light pole?
Well then, as a useless old person, guess I'll have to start wearing my Booji Boy mask when I'm out and about.
I'm always surprised at how many people think crossing the road somewhere without lights or a designated pedestrian crossing is "jaywalking". How would one legally get from one side of the road to the other when in the countryside without a crossing in sight?!
Unless I'm the passenger.
In the early days, all studies on human behavior had been done with American studients.
Until somebody noticed that, and chose to repeat the studies, which formed the foundation of all of science on that topic, in the rest of the world.
Here is what he found:
* The average human on this planet, sees his life as a contribution to his community, his society. His empathy and social instinct are the driving forces behind it.
* The American, and to a certain extend, westerner (that includes me, by the way), on the other hand, was extremely selfish and anti-social. He put himself above others, even if that harmed his community or society as a whole.
Now you can see that however you want (I can't stop you anyway),
but to me, social behavior and empathy are major advantages of our species (and other social species). It's one of the key features that got us this far. (Together with our big brains, dexterous hands, and highly enduring and efficient feet and style of motion, etc.)
So yo can choose to be what I'd call a psychopathic egomaniac, and I can be what you'd call a hopeless beta loser, and we can see who's going to win this, in the game of natural selection. :)
Hint: I've got my community and society to help me. You only got yourself.
I'd work "You and what army?" in there, but selfless teamwork is in fact a key factor in an army's success.
Adam Ruins Everything -- Why Jaywalking Is A Crime
Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves and sold off his own children into slavery. Fuck him.
Thomas Jefferson is also dead, please stop advocating necrophilia.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
If it's the American countryside, who walks? :D
There will NEVER be a set rule of anything like "protect passengers over pedestrians. Or Vice Versa. Because that is not how computers work. And forget about age discrimination, that is just plane stupid. The computer will have a hard enough time deciding if an obstacle is a pedestrian, it won't have that kind of higher logic to estimate the age of the people.
It might not even be able to tell how many people are in the car let alone how many people are currently standing in the middle of the road.
The closest thing that might exist is a rule that states the car may hit smaller obstacles (possibly animals, possibly trash) in the road if swerving might hit something bigger (possibly deer, possibly people).
Instead there will be a complex set of rules such as "stay on roads" and things like that.
AI does not do value judgements. It will have a hard enough time figuring out the environment, it won't have the capacity for the silly ethical questions people keep asking.
Real questions for programming will involve which traffic rules are higher priority than others. For example, staying away from cliffs would probably be very high priority, while slowing down for yellow lights will be lower priority.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or perhaps just from one of the many countries where there is no crime such as "illegal jaywalking"?
One of many? What countries explicitly allow walking straight into moving traffic? I've never been to one of those thankfully.
Where I am from it is illegal to walk into moving traffic, aka jaywalking, and in fact setup very specific cross walks to indicate to traffic they must stop and you have the right of way.
Anywhere outside of those cross walks, and you are legally required to wait until there isn't a car coming at you at speed before you walk into the road.
Every country I've been to have nearly an identical definition of jaywalking, which is walking into the street without regard for approaching traffic.
Adam Ruins Everything -- Why Jaywalking Is A Crime
Essentially, the whole thing is a car lobby smear campaign from the 20s ("jay" was a massive insult, back then), to prevent risking the ban of cars in cities due to them causing so many deaths.
Glad to know that NYC (and Boston, probably) has a large cultural distance from the rest of the US. Any place that's not tolerant of jaywalking isn't worth living in, since it puts the needs of steel sensory deprivation bubbles ahead of human needs...
"For instance, people who were more tolerant of illegal jaywalking tended to be from countries with weaker governance, nations who had a large cultural distance from the U.S. and places that do not value individualism as highly."
If my kids are in the car then save them, mow down the pedestrians. If my kids are in front of the car then save them, slam me into a tree or whatever. Drive like I would.
Jaywalking is a derogatory term employed to prevent dissent against automotive laws passing when they were not in the interest of pedestrians. It worked. It is a made up fake thing that does not exist. It will be a funny, creepy piece of trivia once we all emerge from this current insanity.
> So yo can choose to be what I'd call a psychopathic egomaniac, and I can be what you'd call a hopeless beta loser, and we can see who's going to win this,
The problem is that the vast majority of the people are terrible at identifying the "psychopathic egomaniacs" and, in fact, most often think that the PE's are their friends and that they have a nice smile and present themselves well while they think that someone who is constantly challenging the status quo and throwing shitty ideas back in their face for them to ruminate on are the PE's.
How about making sure the only person in harm's way is the one that chose to let a computer drive in their place?
Hear, hear.
We should re-label the activity as "hobo crossing". In recognition of all the drug-addled homeless people who practice it.
I was going to say something similar. It should automatically undo the seatbelts, accelerate and crash into the thickest bridge abutment it can find to kill people like you.
and when the sensors mess-up and class an kid as safe to run over Debris??
What if the pedestrian is in the road because they were ejected from another vehicle in a crash. Still feel justified in plowing through them?
What if terrorists are jumping in front of self-driving cars in the road. Should your car always crash anyway just in case?
The real question is why we should settle for some crap self-driving car design that uses RNG to decide whether or not to ram pedestrians or crash and burn? I should hope we can do better than that.
Pope Ratzo endorses necrophilia.
The US is a nation composed largely of immigrants and their offspring, many who have arrived comparatively recently. In many cases they came not because it was convenient (getting to the US from Poland or Italy, for example, was not "convenient" before air travel - esp. for poor people) or because it was easy or because it was low risk. They subjected themselves to substantial risk, expense, and inconvenience to make the trip and survive in the US.
These immigrants, of course, left behind those that didn't have the same drive or interest in creating a better situation for themselves and their families. It would not be surprising that those who had the gumption to better themselves rather than sacrifice themselves for the "common good" would be looking out for themselves and their families more strongly than those that lacked such gumption and remained behind.
As well, the US has historically been one of the most diverse populations in the world (due to the source of our population) so the tribal "common good" notion is probably unsurprisingly much stronger than in monocultures like Japan or most of the Nordic countries.
The US seems to have done pretty well - esp. in light of having to deal with its very diverse population.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Did the study clarify if the pedestrians are looking down at their phones, playing pokemon go, while they wander around the street and sidewalk? LOL.
Since the software can't recognize a kid from a crackhead, nor misadventure from ill intent. Let the owner choose. I'd personally swerve to avoid a dog let alone kids, but we don't have granular situational control of the algorithms... yet.
On the other hand If I lived in Russia and had insurance claim hunters dive in front of me I'd brake straight and true.
We all know that whether the car decides to hit a jaywalker or not will depend on several variables:
1) Who is more likely to win a multi-million verdict in a Civil Suit: a jay-walker or the passenger?
2) Will drivers buy the AI software if it will decide to kill their entire families?
3) How well the engineers work on a feature (deciding whether to hit jaywalker or kill passenger by driving off cliff?) that is much less likely to be used in the real world then every other feature of the AI?
And variable 4) Moral philosophers have written a paper on this based on millions of data points from an online quiz, is not on the list.
Call an uber.
Fun fact: Jaywalking was invented by the car companies to kick most people off the street to make driving easier for customers.
Pedestrians are so much more vulnerable than passengers, it seems like this is a really contrived 'moral dilemma.'
Pedestrian injury is sever at 40km/h, fatal at 60.
But passengers often survive crashes at these speeds.
It reminds me of people who say they never wear seat belts because once they were able to jump out of a car as it was speeding towards a cliff, and that if they were wearing the belt at the time that they would have died.
Idiots studying moral dilemmas pushing around ideas about autonomous vehicles which are wrong.
The car should not get into that situation. If it needs to pass a blind spot where people might come out of nowhere, it should do it slowly.
If there was some kind of mechanical failure such as a brake failure, it should have noticed that when the brakes started failing and shut down.
No autonomous car safe to be on the road would ever be in a position to make this choice. AND if it some how magically was put in this spot, then it should just try to stop. It doesn't know the density of the objects in front of it, or the value of the people in front of it, or that they are people not manikins, or how many people are INSIDE it. This is all ridiculous. And getting people to make noise about this increases the likelihood we will waste a bunch of money and cpu time into being able to react in this situation which WILL NOT HAPPEN.
In a crash, self-driving cars should be predictable, rather than coming up with convoluted means to determine which group of pedestrians should be slammed.
Human drivers are erratic enough. No need to make computer-assised drivers to also be erratic.
this is when things get interesting. Things like flying cars. Because who wants to be on the ground [or in air] with granny bluehair behind the wheel. And who's going to be jaywalking in the air :)
(im joking, please don't send a car to kill me)
However, there are laws against some sorts of crossing between intersections in some areas. Where I live, there is one law that says that if you are within X feet (I don't recall what X is) of a controlled intersection, it is illegal to cross except at such an intersection.
Also, there are places where "no pedestrian" signs prohibit pedestrians so crossing a road from/to one of those areas is also illegal.
But, yes, where I live, you're certainly free to cross an undivided road on foot if there's no intersection within miles and no sign prohibiting it!
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
That a self-driving car automates the very decisions I as a driver would make myself is the only reason I would consider purchasing one in the first place. Quite bluntly, I am responsible first and foremost to the safety of myself and my passengers. I would accept no deviation whatsoever from such principles of an automated device that I purchase, own, and employ on my behalf.
I can see it now. A software choice you can buy, Car Company A, where the car makes choices based on liberal morals. And car company B, that advertise our car *will* choose to save your life.
Surely in the case of a guaranteed accident something has gone quite wrong, and the vehicle can no longer be certain that any further actions it takes aren't going to put even more people in danger than it is currently aware of. The only safe choice the vehicle can make in a situation like this is to immediately bleed energy away from the ensuing collision by applying the breaks, and that's about it. If you swerve to avoid anything you risk smashing into something else.
....For 2 reasons.
1) By being able to operate a vehicle orders of magnitude faster and with far more information than a human, the chance that the car will ever even get into a situation were this decision would have to be made is very, very unlikely.
2) If it gets into this situation where stopping entirely w/o injuring anyone is off the table, then the car will have so little time to react that making a decision to kill one group or the other and acting on it is a pointless exercise.
Also, there are possible new twists that people haven't even considered that will likely make this argument completely moot. Since the cars will have a far better understanding of their immediate vicinity, you can build in external air bags that can fire moments before any impact to further protect occupants and pedestrians. Perhaps you will want cars to be programed to steer directly at unavoidable pedestrians in order to center them in an air bag pillow.
The trolley problem is an interesting exerciser for ethics 101 students, but far to simplistic and contrived to be worth of real debate or consideration.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
... know that they have to set priorities. You can spend time on X or on Y but not on both. So you decide what has more benefits, working on X or on Y, and that's what you do.
Working to make cars more secure is highly beneficial. Working on deciding moral dilemmas, whether to kill one person or another, isn't beneficial in any way. One person dead, one way or another. So spending developer time on this kind of question is absolutely pointless until these cars are 100% safe, and then it is even more pointless.
Some of us had low numbers and were here from the start. Once Rob left I stopped coming for a while as this place went downhill. I no longer have the email address from grad school I used back then and honestly donâ(TM)t remember any sign in info. This place usually sucks so much and I come here so infrequently that Iâ(TM)m satisfied being an ac for my sporadic comments. ACs are part of the history here. If you get rid of ACs you might as well get rid of the mod points too. Maybe they should just go with disqus. Yea that would be cool /sarc
You do not need AI for that. Just a Muslim Jihadist in a Truck of Peace.
I would never expect a self driving car to swerve to avoid contact. Computer vision is still very dumb, and it could see a sheet as a wall and decide to swerve into the crowd behind the sheet thinking it was causing less harm. Plus the false positive causing random swerving around the road when a cloud goes over the road. Plus it's likely to cause a bigger accident when it hits the gravel edge and flips the car. If anything get longer range sensors and preempt the conditions ahead and adjust the speed accordingly. This still isn't ideal as it'll mean the driverless cars randomly slow down for no apparent reason.
You do not need AI for that. Just a Muslim Jihadist in a Truck of Peace.
Should AI driven cars in muslim countries be programmed to swerve to run over pedestrians if a koran is in the road?
A machine shouldn't "prioritize" the passengers or the pedestrian's lives, per se... it should prioritize driving safely. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less. Driving safely entails being aware enough of one's surroundings and driving at an appropriate speed that one is able to safely stop in a hypothetical reduced visibility scenario that the likelihood of something that is genuinely unexpected arising should be statistically negligible. Any sense of "priotizing" would be pointless, and would only lead to people blaming whatever convenient target they can find if or when things don't go there way. If the car was objectively driving safely, then any debates on what the car "should have done" are rendered moot... the car obeys the law, and does its best to drive in a safe manner. Any accident it therefore gets into with a vehicle that is being driven by a human would therefore be statistically more likely to be the human's fault.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The car should swerve and wipe out as many ANONYMOUS COWARDS as possible.
Says the guy posting with a fake name.
The IRONY, it BURNS!! It BURNS!!
> So yo can choose to be what I'd call a psychopathic egomaniac, and I can be what you'd call a hopeless beta loser, and we can see who's going to win this,
The problem is that the vast majority of the people are terrible at identifying the "psychopathic egomaniacs" and, in fact, most often think that the PE's are their friends and that they have a nice smile and present themselves well while they think that someone who is constantly challenging the status quo and throwing shitty ideas back in their face for them to ruminate on are the PE's.
The problem is that the vast majority of the people are terrible at identifying the "psychopathic egomaniacs" and, in fact, most often think that the PE's are their friends and that they have a nice smile and present themselves well while they think that someone who is constantly challenging the status quo and throwing shitty ideas back in their face for them to ruminate on are the PE's.
LOL Oh my god!! Dude, sociopathy and narcissism are two distinctly different personality disorders. Sure, most sociopaths are also narcissists, but not vice versa. You could only aspire to be a sociopath, you are so pathetic.
Meanwhile, once again you've revealed your narcissistic personality disorder in your own post by whining about the narcissistic injury of being called out for your short many syndrome. WE ALL SEE YOU.
You seem to think that because you want to be there to help your society, your society will be there to help you. It doesnâ(TM)t work that way.
Trolley problems are interesting for the average person to discuss with each other.
To an engineer they are engineering failures. And I don't know about you personally, maybe you're some daredevil alcoholic behind the wheel, but I've yet to ever encounter a life or death situation for anyone while driving. That includes ever even seeing anyone else in one. Considering self driving cars are supposed to be safer than human drivers to begin with, not only is even getting into a stupid trolley problem situation a failure for a self driving car to begin with, it's also hard to imagine how the ever loving hell it would happen without some third option of "kill no one".
So please, please stop posting this stupid story that, in effect, never changes at all. This isn't news for nerds, it's clickbait discussion topics for mouth breathers.
If cars care for anyone other than their owner, that's socialism, which will be the downfall of America. #MAGA
Facts
The algorithm is probably quickly calculating a tree of possibilities and taking the min(sum(damages)). Would the damages be more affecting the passengers, as long as overall there are less damages than hurting the pedestrians, the algo should take that path.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
In a crash, obey road rules as much as practical. Normally, this means braking and staying in your lane. Stray outside your lane only if it won't kill someone.
Further, AI today is generally too clever by half. I don't think its capable of making any such decisions.
and when the sensors mess-up and class an kid as safe to run over Debris??
First of all, the whole road would have to be covered in something as big as the kid to even think about running over an obstacle.
Secondly, very probably any software would simply stop if the road was filled with debris that large, or at worst run around.
Thirdly, moving "debris" would rate a higher priority not to go over compared to static obstacles.
Fourthly, don't set your damn baby down on the road or Grandma will never even see it and the way those old people car shocks are she wouldn't even feel the bump going over it.
The kid is a lot safer in a world of self driving cars that can see exactly what is on the road WAY better than any human can, and have better reflexes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The highest responding age group was 20 year olds, and largest number of respondents (close to 40% respondents) fell into the $0-$5,000 annual income bracket, so people not with means to purchase a self-driving car, hence responding to the questions from "what others should do" perspective, not "what I would do". No surprise, people are usually very altruistic when asked what others should do. If the question was "what should your car do" or "what should your loved one's car do", the answers would be different.
IBID.
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds
No, if they did that. they would move at the lowest possible speed - walking pace (or less). And who would use them, then?
The first priority of an autonomous vehicle will be customer service. To get the paying passenger (or owner) to where they want to be while staying within the pre-defined rules of the road: speed, traffic lights, etc.
There will not ever be an AV that can compute the age of pedestrians and single-out the oldest ones to preferentially collide with, if a collision is inevitable. Worse than that, to do so would be to target a vulnerable group - one with less survivability than (say) a 25 year-old in good health. And as soon as a vehicle made any autonomous life-or-death determination, the lawsuits would bury it, its owner, its makers, its designers and anyone else who was involved, for years.
The only thing that prevents people from getting embroiled in these sorts of moral decisions is our recognised fallability. Once we expect that machines will be less fallible, they'd better be dam' well perfect. The AV makers will have a hell of a job trying to walk back from the ignorant media's view that AVs will be "perfect" drivers. Studies like this one, which imply they will be are doing nobody a service.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The problem with self driving is, when you have a machine that you are programming with vastly enhanced capabilities to that of a human, then it stands to reason that the vehicle be that much more safe. If developers have programmed a car to drive without considering every possible scenario that their car may find itself in then they have been negligent. Maybe one day when 99% of cars are automated, then they will have a chance to be safer simply by driving 'slightly better than' a human and consistency and homogeneity will bring safety, but for today the assumption with automated cars must be that they will need to navigate roads with a grate many humans that do a great many unpredictable things. To ignore that an automated vehicle will need to drive with humans and not prepare for it is negligent.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This is a false choice. Any code added to address this non-issue is going to make the overall system LESS safe for everyone, as it will add complexity, and the likelihood of failure.
so it's a moot point
From the very foundation that manages the estate of Thomas Jefferson at the home he built, Monticello, including his descendants, both black and white:
“Though enslaved, Sally Hemings helped shape her life and the lives of her children, who got an almost 50-year head start on emancipation, escaping the system that had engulfed their ancestors and millions of others. Whatever we may feel about it today, this was important to her.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, 2017
I don't think Thomas Jefferson was quite as evil as you make him out to be. He seems to have been more interested in keeping his relationship with Sally Hemings secret, rather than in keeping anyone a slave. I also challenge you to produce a record of Jefferson selling any of his children with Sally Hemings, or a record of any of Sally's children being abused. Jefferson went out of his way to provide Sally with a private adjoining bedroom with his own. This woman had unfettered access to Jefferson. She could have easily killed him in his sleep, for decades, but she didn't. They also fell in love while in France, where mixed race relationships where no big deal.
It's also not fair to use modern values to judge those from a different culture and era. If you have references to paint a clear picture of Jefferson as someone who was truly evil, rather than someone who was trying to avoid persecution for a forbidden love, I'd love to see them.
Jefferson did leave clear instructions that all his slaves were to be freed, but I don't think this happened until after he died. I do love history, but I do not claim to be knowledgeable about Jefferson, although I have visited his home.
If you want an example of evil in the founding fathers of US history - look at Alexander Hamilton. That SOB used anonymous news articles and stories to libel and belittle Aaron Burr for decades, a rather competent military man who went on to become vice president. Both Burr and Jefferson were not terribly fond of Hamilton's Federalist agenda, which has issues reverberating in American politics to this day.
Burr eventually got tired of Hamilton's shit and challenged him to a duel, which was accepted. Hamilton, being inept with a pistol, his few competencies being running his mouth and flinging ink with his pen, lost the duel and died. A fitting end for an Anonymous Coward.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Reference please.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
I also forgot my original username and password from the early days of Slashdot, and I have no record of an email I got, as a result of some early postings, asking me to participate in some new fangled moderation system they were working on. The email was from some dude named Rob Malda. I was in grad school at the time and too busy to take any of this shit seriously, so I kind of blew it off. Sorry Rob.
Anyway, your excuse for remaining an AC is lame, and I'd hit you with my cane, if I could see where you are.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Let God sort it out.
If a car has enough AI to decide who lives or dies, then it's a waste of AI. Put the AI in some sort of chassis than can get in and out of a car, drive when asked, and do other useful things, like help me learn a foreign language and play the piano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
EULA will not hold up in criminal court but the said part is that it will take some very bad like an auto drive trunk hitting a school bus to get there. So then in criminal court will the power to look past NDA's / EULA and be able to hold someone at fault even if they have go after a big list of subcontractors
I'd mod you up for this if I could ...
Can you imagine the raucous, fruit-throwing shouting match debates between citizens, discussing important issues during the foundation of western civilization, at Pnyx, while some citizen tried to conceal their identity with a hood and false voice?
I'd love to hear their laughter and derision, and watch the crows pick all the tossed lunches and partially rotten fruit off the ground in the aftermath.
American Politics is boring, and Americans tend to take themselves far too seriously. If you don't have the courage to put your own foot in your mouth and eat a bit of crow now and then, then just shut the fuck up and quit pretending not to be a lying shill.
Entertaining politics of and for non-cowards
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Answer: Save the pedestrian, kill the passengers.
Reason: I don't own one, hence the chance of being the pedestrian in the scenario is higher.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How would one legally get from one side of the road to the other when in the countryside without a crossing in sight?!
I know Americans that would take their car.
Except that you're not really Gerald Butler now are you.
The Stabinator will be programmed with your preferences. Remember, we're not the bad guys. You are. -Stabco
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's a cute experiment with not exactly surprising results (humans prefer humans over animals - who'd have thought?).
But in the end, like the trolley experiment, it is informative and insightful and a bunch of other +5 mod points buzzwords, but the actual solution for the real world will be made by engineers, not by philosophers, and it will almost certainly not involve a "moral decision" subsystem. The primary effort of a practical AI is in making a decision so quickly that it can still minimize damage. Every CPU cycle wasted on evaluating the data in other ways is silly. It will rely for its decision on whatever data its sensors have already provided, and that data will not be in the shape or form of "there are 3 black people with this age range and these fitness indicators in the car, here are their yearly incomes, family relations and social responsibilities. Outside the car we can choose between the river, average temperature 2 degrees, giving the passengers this table of survival probabilities. Or crowd A, here is a data set of their apparent age, social status and survival probabilities. Or crowd B, here is their data set."
This is how the philosopher imagines the problem would be stated to the AI - or to a human in a survey.
But in reality, the question will be more likely something like: "Collision avoidance subsystem. Here's some noisy sensor data that looks like the road ends over there. A bunch of pixels to the left could be people, number unclear. A bunch of pixels to the right also seem to be people, trajectory prediction subsystem has just given up on them because they're running fuck knows where. Estimated time to impact: 0.5 seconds. You have 1 ms to plot a course somewhere or it doesn't make a difference anymore. Figure something out, I need to adjust the volume on the infotainment system and make the crash warning icon blink."
What we will end up with is some general heuristics, like "don't crash into people if you can avoid it" and then the AI will somehow come up with some result, and it will work ok in most cases in the simulator, and then it will be installed in cars.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If a car is programmed to kill its passengers to save pedestrians under some rare circumstances, it will far more commonly kill passengers pointlessly, due to false positives.
Protect the most endangered species first. Humans last
Yes. As is apparent, I am NOT a fan of on-line anonymity. I truly consider speech that you can't be personally held accountable for to be the words of true cowards who have nothing of value to contribute to society. I will continue to rail against it.
I like anonymity, and use it in most circumstances except here. I don't mind that someone who sees something that I've written can see who I am, what I mind is someone else can look me up and find out what I've written.
The correct question is who is responsible for the death(s).
Answer: The automobile manufacturer for designing a product that automatically kills people in some scenarios.
You are a poopiepants, mister.
Jaywalking is not a crime in most countries. Pedestrians typically have right of way over cars. That may sound odd to Americans who haven't traveled, but most countries don't have a word for jaywalking because it is just walking.
So tolerance of jaywalking comes from it being fine in most places.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The UK has no law outlawing jaywalking. The history of the law, passed as a result of pressure from motor car manufacturers to allow them to blame pedestrians for accidents, is unimpressive. It has an alarming tendency to be used in a racist way by police e.g.
https://www.economist.com/demo...
makes the point more strongly. Indeed the underlying assumption that pedestrians aren't capable of rational thought is extraordinary. The fact that it is the law in ISRAEL is even weirder (a friend got done for it).
if the car is driving itself, it will be questionable about the security problem
Kill them all and let god sort them out
Why not do it at random. In case there is no clear solution let the random number generator be the judge. In that case it was just bad luck for the victims, which kind of reflects a large part of real life accidents
Most countries allow it, for instance here in Australia it is perfectly legal unless you are within 20 mins of a signed crossing/lights or it is an expressway, otherwise you can cross anywhere, most of Europe is the same. So I am thinking obviously you have not travelled much or are simply unaware of the laws in the places you visit.
...will save itself, killing if needed passengers and pedestrians.
This is a moot point. Self driving cars will never be a reality ever, the reason is not moral or technical it's legal. The person who is in the self driving car will always be legally responsible for everything that happens. So that means if the car malfunctions and kills somebody the "driver" will be prosecuted. Who in their right mind wants to use a self driving car if they can go to jail for using it?
I think in most jurisdictions a vehicle that leaves its lane during an accident will be regarded as behaving incorrectly.
I think that just trying to determine the best behaviour in a car crash may be as a matter of facts impossible. For example what if the driver is the main cause of the crash? (I can easily picture some assholes that tries to force drive his autonomous car just because he is in a hurry) So the human inside the car is the main reason for the crash and the veicle must prioritize his life over the life of innocent bystanders? I don't think so. In my opinion the best choice is no choice at all, the veicle brain should just lock the steering weel and activate the brakes while praying for the best (maybe the car system could even show a message on the HUD like "you are about to die...have a nice day").
As a pedestrian who was run into by a car, carried on its hood, and then fell to the ground and fortunately survived, I ask, "Why is this an issue for self-driving cars?" Why don't we ask the same question about human drivers? People are so scared of what self-driving cars would do; yet, we don't give a first thought about why human drivers make so many bad choices.
I would trust software to make much better decisions than human drivers. With AI, the "choice" of what to do in such situations may not be up to programmers to decide beforehand anyway.
So this is not a legitimate issue.
We don't ascribe to protecting the rich more because they are worth more money, do we? I don't. So why should the cash flow be a factor when it comes to a car crash?
Because when the car crashes, you think YOU will be the car owner, and you hate pedestrians who might get involved, because the only reason you see that happening is because they walked in the way.
A large number of accidents are from drivers who swerve into a tree or similar trying to avoid a cat that leapt out in front. The automatic reaction of NORMAL humans is no different when it's a human, except they are more likely to swerve to avoid a person than a cat.
It isnt human nature, it's YOUR nature, that makes you automatically want to protect YOU in this case.
Why the fuck are you driving at high speed so close to a cliff edge? A SMART person, and the car they'd program, would reduce speed on such a road.
YOU, a stupid selfish fuckwit, would not.
There isn't a single driver under the age of 80 who hasn't broken the speed limit. Including you. So a 45 to the face for every driver too, right?
If walking on the street was equal, then why don't pedestrians have right of way on the roads, since apparently you want them equal participants? Trucks have to pay more care than cars, cars more than bikes, bikes more than cycles. So if pedestrians are equally traffic, pedestrians more than all of them.
Can someone give me a situation where these are the two choices the car can make, where the fault is not of the passenger just suddenly jumping in front of the car?
Remember, he was wealthy and she doesn't have legal training in foreign law, nor on how international law applied.
Remember, even trying to do so would end in the murder of the slave, and quite probably even if successful, the death of their loved ones.
Anonymous Pedophile's, like you, opinions on anything are irrellevant. No one wants to hear you pedophile conspiracies. I told you, STOP MOLESTING CHILDREN! It's bad, M'kay? Stop it! You are a child molester. You've proven again and again by the way you hide behind anonymity. Only child molesters are so insistent on keeping themselves anonymous like the cowards they are.
I am Gerald E. Butler, 2807 Summit Road, Copley, OH 44321. Feel free to stop by sometime and I'll beat the child molester out of you.
Thank you for playing.
At machine speeds, all people are identified and their social scores queried. Lowest scores die.
The Statute of Queen Anne states that pedestrians, horseriders, and cyclists, have an enumerated right to the queen's highway. Cars do not. Hence they need a license, and the motorway system is separate from the queen's highway (and unlike the rest of the road system, paid for, theoretically, out of the road tax, unlike the highway system which is paid out of general and local taxes, which everyone pays, don't listen to the fuckwith Clarkson).
And in EVERY country, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Which country is YOUR uneducated ass in?
It is funny when you ask engineers design something that follows existing paradigm. Should a self driving car roams above 100km/h ? Hell no. It is not fuel efficient and not safe above 80km/h. There is no reason to make self-driving car do what the typical driver will do.
The trolley problem is in fact an biology behavior and philosophy issue. If engineer mix it up with machine without shifting the paradigm, there is something very wrong with whoever put the machine in the first place.
You are shopping for a self driving car.
You can choose between those that will either:
1) protect you
2) kill you and protect an another random person
Which one are you going to pick?
And then you will end up with a bullet in the brainpan, because YOU thought you could endanger someone's life in your car and THEY thought they could stand their ground against a threat.
it should always protect the pedestrian.
Q. who has the biggest chance of the least injuries or death?
A. the person in the car.
the places where you would encounter pedestrians normally already have low speed limits, the car should be able to easily avoid hitting the pedestrian while still decreasing the speed enough that in case it crashes into something, the injuries to the passengers will be none to minimal.
but even hitting a pedestrian at 50km/h can result in death or severe injuries.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
If discussion here were more healthy I guess I would take the time to create a user. As it is there's too much political orientend talk, corporate ass lickers and stalkers. AC is the way to go.
How about we just focus on having the car not try to occupy the same space as anything else solid?
Only those who benefit from the tech should be put at risk from it. (i.e. it should always favour saving the pedestrians)
Of course no one would buy one then, so the manufacturers have to come up with hypothetical cases to suggest there is any ambiguity.
Captcha: accident
It's a Kobayashi Maru test. No way to win, but a decision must be made just the same.
I think the simple solution is that passengers have a degree of protection that pedestrians don't; therefor the A.I. should favor pedestrians. For the same reason drivers are required to yield to pedestrians.
Unlike a pedestrian, car passengers have restraints, a specially designed collapsible surround, and cushioning, to remove death as an option if they smack into something solid. So, yeah, the choice is NEVER to "kill the passengers", only ever whether or not to kill a pedestrian.
That you "think" otherwise shows how little humanity you have.
No, there is NO evidence that TJ had children by his slaves. The genetic testing was inconclusive and indicated it could very well have been his cousin who fathered her child. In fact, it is more likely for other reasons to have been his cousin. Of course the decendents would rather claim to be decended from TJ himself.
Obviously there are those who would and do abuse online anonymity. That said, in today's world where posts are likely to be archived, sorted, and databased forever, legitimate and thoughtful posts may very well need to be anonymous.
It is unacceptable to some of us that there is a database somewhere that says "Paul likes to eat bacon (health risk, raise his insurance rates), likes to work with small teams (no room for required diversity target, don't hire him), and goes fishing on holiday (anti-environment, risk to our reputation).
Anonymity is not always unacceptable hiding. It may be just a desire not to feed the beast.
1) We consider the self-driving car to be a "robot"
2) We consider the willing passengers "part of the robot", as they chose to be there.
Therefore the law ("A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm") only should apply to those parties who didn't consent to having a "robot" interact with them.
Thus... the willing passengers inside the car should be sacrificed.
If this question is even on the table then it's pretty damn clear the tech isn't ready for primetime. Is everyone in the Valley in the 21st century an autistic retard? It would be all too easy to assume so, as this is insanity, or at the very least, inanity. Give us a break.
The real dilemma is which action will incur the least losses to the manufacturer through lawsuits. This is what will be implemented, I've never seen a case of a company placing altruism over profits unless they can virtue signal the altruism to make more profits.
No, you don't get to presume that the redlightrunner is human. We're assuming self driving cars. If a human decides to plough into your car, there's nothing the car can or should do about it. On humans forcing the car to crash, the AI is nothing to do with it, any more than if it were a policeman pointing a gun at the occupants because the policeman thinks the car needs to stop. If the AI were to decide that it has to plough through the "pedestrian" in the way, you die with a bullet in the brainpan, the policeman ends up a smear on the road. If AI instead just says "I can stop" and does so, everyone survives.
Calculating which group to protect more is over complicating the situation. The car should simply attempt to stop moving, just like a human driver would.
In all these scenarios I would always pick the pedestrians. The passengers in the car are strapped in by seat belts, wrapped in a 5000 lb steel cage, and surrounded by airbags. The pedestrians are protected by a t-shirt and jeans.
Then again if I was in a self-driving car and it swerved to avoid a squirrel by slamming me into a tree. I would probably buy a different car next time.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
I told you, STOP MOLESTING CHILDREN! It's bad.
Your inner dialog every single day.
I am Gerald E. Butler, 2807 Summit Road, Copley, OH 44321.
No you are not. That is some poor schmoe that you googled up and now are trying to joe-job because you are a pathetic coward.
If that were really you, you'd post a photo of you on the front lawn with a signing saying "I am not a pedophile."
It should try to save both.
I bet a lot of people posting as AC do it because they're trying to avoid triggering that psycho APK, so he doesn't show up and start filling the discussion with pages of bullshit that make it impossible to read.
This site is full of fucking lunatics. IT people are unhinged.
A car that prioritizes saving pedestrian lives at the expense of drivers? Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that (see: protesters)...
I don't want ANY machine deciding for me who is going to live or die, that must be MY decision and MY decision ALONE, which is one of the myriad reasons I'd never set foot into any so-called 'self-driving car'. Machines don't care about living things because they are incapable of distinguishing between living beings and inanimate objects. This is one of the many reasons the half-assed 'AI' being used is the wrong approach: mere 'machine learning' isn't good enough, it needs to be able to actually 'think', and we have no idea how that even works.
Working in the trucking industry under DOT regulation, fleets of cargo and power units prescribed by state laws accumulates safety statistics, albeit private numbers. As Director of Safety with 1200 units and 9500 trailers nationwide with thousands of drivers, 70% of all fatals occurred 1/2 hr before or after the hours of sunrise - sunset. Animal .vs. Vehicular accidents where property damage was the result of a driver ' swerve' to avoid an accident overwhelmingly resolved to be driver responsibility finding a lack of attention, asleep at the wheel, medical condition or simply phantom; a lie; a coverup.
There were no human .vs. vehicle damage claims against drivers who saved someone's life by driving over a cliff - so to speak. SO the dynamics established from experience in-fleet with AI technologies specific to each ' brand' or ' application' drive the resultant statistics, philosophy, risk factors and regulation around headless steerage.
Elon with Tesla has steered clear of headless which is a major difference with a distinction that not only recognizes but ingeniously places responsibility where it ultimately rests; on the driver. DOT regulation will follow for headless steerage around the statistics to backup Tesla's stance, safety choices and the fact that legally the driver is ultimately in control and responsible regardless how he elects to do so.
Make the car makers put in writing that the car will attempt save either the pedestrian or the passengers, and state which one this particular car is programmed to save. Allow the buyer to choose which car to buy based on this.
UK total road deaths - about 2,000, or less.
US total road deaths - about 30,000
Therefore, using your figures
UK pedestrian deaths - 400
USA pedestrian deaths 3,600
On the whole therefore banning jaywalking clearly makes it more dangerous to be a pedestrian...
Isn't logic wonderful!
The Trolley Dilemma always struck me as rather artificial and constructed so as to raise the maximal philosophical conflict.
First of all, drivers face these problems today, and somehow manage to "solve" them. How? Even when the driver merely closes their eyes and slams on the brakes (or the accelerator!), we consider those to be outcomes we can live with. We may litigate, but no one seriously suggests that there is a fatal flaw in allowing human drivers to make decisions.
Second, how much information is available to the AI/driver? The Trolley Dilemma suggests that we can "know" that we are sacrificing one victim for another. Can we really? In the limited time available? And not knowing how external participants will react to a vehicle bearing down on them? I've always thought this part of the Trolley Dilemma was 100% artificial.
Third, humans always have self-interest. We have empathy too, but self-interest tends to dominate. So... simply model self-interest into the AI. The AI can attempt to save outside participants if possible, but the default should be self-interest. And I'm not suggesting that it should choose "no risk at all to the vehicle or driver", that is a decision model that will always sacrifice outsiders.
But most of all, I think time will limit the practical decision matrix any self-driving system can accommodate. The middle of an accident is not the time for a deep philosophical debate on the nature of life, death, sacrifice, and selfishness. Not by an AI and not by a human driver.
My guess is that an AI will be able to accommodate a limited number of inputs, a limited number of calculated trajectories, and a pretty simple risk calculation. It may not even have reliable information on which LIDAR signal is a pedestrian. Expecting more than that is just fodder for a navel-gazing class in Philosophy.
"OK, OK, what if you are in a boat, and all the food has run out, and you have to choose to EAT someone, so the rest may survive!" Yeah, except how do you know that the remaining passengers ever get picked up? Oh, that was assumed, right... Also assumed was the moral acceptability of cannibalism to the participants. Also assumed was that there is enough cohesion among the participants to make a single decision that everyone abides by...
This might be fun to ponder as an ethical hypothetical question, but it lacks all relevance to actual self-driving cars. For this type of programming to come into practical use, there would need to be a situation where: a) something unexpected turned up in the middle of the road b) there is not enough time to brake, but c) there is enough time to steer away, but d) there is no way to steer so well that you avoid an accident completely, and e) the car has good enough sensors and software that it can discriminate between different objects (humans, animals, trees...). I probably do not need to point out that the status of self-driving cars today is at the level that you cannot trust them not to hit road blocks or people crossing the street at the wrong place. There are legitimate ethical questions regarding self-driving cars - is it right to relieve the driver of responsibility, how much better than humans do the computers have to be before they take over, if an accident happens who is responsible (the programmer? the CEO of the car manufacturer?) and so on. This nonsense question about who the car should save is unfortunate because it distracts from the very real issues that autonomous cars face.
America is one of the few countries that even calls it a crime.
Europe doesn't. Europe has stronger government, in many respects, yet is culturally relatively close, and values individual freedom as much as America but places a different balance between freedom from and freedom to.
Notice I do not call one better. It is a different balance, that is all.
That there are journalists and academics who cannot fathom a larger universe than their patch of ground is more troublesome than any finding they produced.
It also renders their findings worthless. Never trust an academic who doesn't understand what they are looking at.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You know, I doubt Thomas Jefferson would disagree. He supported freedom of speech, not freedom from responsibility.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The British Highway Code requires you to drive at a speed that is safe for the prevailing conditions, such that you can stop safely in an emergency such as someone stepping out onto the road, and be able to maintain control of the vehicle at all times.
If a computer can't do that, then what's the use in an automated car?
In that case, there is virtually no situation in which passengers or bystanders is at significant risk. If they were, either control isn't being maintained or the car is travelling too fast to stop safely in an emergency under prevailing conditions.
What's the problem?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's interesting to me how almost all of the posts are avoiding the ethical question entirely by saying how a self driving car would never get in such a situation in the first place. Even if the vehicle is perfect, other vehicles may not be, and pedestrians certainly aren't. Such no-win situations absolutely happen. Regardless, let's ignore any hypothetical scenario and simply answer the ethical question: Should an autonomous vehicle prioritize the life of its own passengers over the lives in other vehicles or pedestrians acting legally? illegally?
Those machines cannot hold presently their own consistency... - but what if some agency will spoof 100 lives against one in machine?
Who will be responsible for the death? - Politicans? - Forget! - NOBODY!
Do pedestrians have the right to shoot a self-driving car in self defense? What about anti-tank bazookas, etc.
I do not want to hear what an old German thinks about morality and philosophy. You're STILL in time-out AND YOU KNOW WHY. Go sit back down in the corner and shut up, Goebbels.
Your comment is fair - however turning it into a personal attack merely shows that you have no ability to accept when you are wrong. That's not a good place to be...
Why did the Koran cross the road? (Awaiting punchlines)
Just another day in Paradise
To you healthy is, "What doesn't offend me". That is the opposite of healthy discussion.
To you healthy is, "Whatever is offensive." That is the opposite of healthy discussion.
Offense is something the listener/reader creates in their mind, not something given by the speaker/writer. One can choose to be offended at anything. If you choose to be offended and that keeps you from rationally considering what the speaker/writer is saying, then you have kept yourself from having healthy discussion. What you want is an echo chamber where everything you hear fits nicely in a box of your own choosing and makes you feel comfortable with your current views of the world. That is definitely NOT healthy discussion.
Nothing offends me. Ever.
Nothing offends me. Ever.
Says the guy who constantly loses his shit at the slightest provocation. Stolen valor coward can't even look in the mirror.
I've told you to stop sucking your own dick. It's nasty.
The AI's job is to #1 obey the laws, #2 prevent an accident and #3 arrive at its destination. In that order specifically. As long as #1 is being followed, it is not liable for any incidents that occur. Hitting a person violates #2 and would prevent #3 At no point will the AI ever make a decision about who dies, it's beyond the scope of it's programming and should always remain so. The reaction is straight forward: Step 1. brake as hard as it can, Step 2. Swerve to avoid if it can do so safely. This is not iRobot where the machine is calculating odds of survival and making a choice based off that, there is no thought process. It is completely pre-programmed reactions.
I've told you to stop sucking your own dick. It's nasty.
Its so weird you keep posting your inner monologue for everyone to see.
It's so weird that your'e such a faggoty, child-molesting, cowardly bitch who balls up in the fetal position and sucks his own dick while chanting, "make the bad man stop" instead of being a man and posting under your real name. Loser!
The only person losing their shit is cowardly you sitting in the corner sucking your own dick to afraid to speak as your real name because you are a coward.
Keeping pumping that 2 inch pud, boot. Anger fuck yourself in ecstasy.
Uh, sure, sure "gerard"