Moral machine, who should driverless cars kill?

[Vynny]

How about we don't include morality into technological design? We can easily design self driving cars to stop in order to avoid collision and assuming that everyone is riding in a self driving car, the car behind them would stop as well, along with the car behind them, and the car behind them, and the car behind them, etc. No need for morality in that scenario because they can and are able to avoid the accident entirely.

I think some people forget why we use the term "accident" to describe a car crash. It's because typically car crashes aren't intentional and the whole idea behind self driving cars is that a computer doesn't doze off, can react faster, and can be more aware in 360 degrees around the car than humans can thus we can achieve a reality in which no accidents occur because all of the cars are driven with the necessary awareness and reaction time to completely avoid any collision.

On the other hand, maybe I would love for the car to ignore the presence of bicycler's in front of me and just run em over. Roads are for motor vehicles only, so stay off the fucking road with that slow ass shit >.< . It especially sucks since my air conditioning broke and it's still summer . . .

[Canpinter]

How about we don't include morality into technological design? We can easily design self driving cars to stop in order to avoid collision and assuming that everyone is riding in a self driving car, the car behind them would stop as well, along with the car behind them, and the car behind them, and the car behind them, etc. No need for morality in that scenario because they can and are able to avoid the accident entirely.

I think some people forget why we use the term "accident" to describe a car crash. It's because typically car crashes aren't intentional and the whole idea behind self driving cars is that a computer doesn't doze off, can react faster, and can be more aware in 360 degrees around the car than humans can thus we can achieve a reality in which no accidents occur because all of the cars are driven with the necessary awareness and reaction time to completely avoid any collision.

On the other hand, maybe I would love for the car to ignore the presence of bicycler's in front of me and just run em over. Roads are for motor vehicles only, so stay off the fucking road with that slow ass shit >.< . It especially sucks since my air conditioning broke and it's still summer . . .

the point of this is what the car is programmed to do in the event the brakes fail

[Independent voter]

There needs to be a switch somewhere in the car that says "Off: don't run over Ms Gillis' kindergarten class, kill me", "On: Run over the kindergarten and save me."

[Vizardlorde]

Why would any customer support a product that kills the people that pay for it more often than those that don't?... Oh wait there's smokers and alcoholics.

[Deleted]

by the way. Let's say I have a Tesla and it has a glitch and it drives over 6 people and they all die while I have autopilot activated.

Whos fault is it?

[Templar 331]

the whole premise of this is the car suffers brake failure tho.

So why not have backup brakes instead of this ludicrous "morality" function. Then no one dies.......

[Mister Cheese]

How about fuck that and let me drive my own car?

[Canpinter]

So why not have backup brakes instead of this ludicrous "morality" function. Then no one dies.......

because you still need it to be prepared in the event that all safety devices fail

[Vash The Stampede]

I choose C. Build a better driverless car so this scenario doesn't have to happen. But hey, if they happen to accidentally kill some people, I'm sure it was the right decision. Why build a car with better breaks or tires, when a simple coding algorithm can just choose someones fate?

[looorg]

It should kill itself and it's passengers.

[announced]

the issue is where do you draw the line. lets say the car has two choices, a 10% risk of death for you or a 90% risk of death for 5 pedestrians?

my choice i still want to survive. sucks for the pedestrians but honestly they should be more careful where they are going, look both ways and use all 5 sense to detect approaching traffic befor trying to cross the street. the chance of me hitting them is extremely low anyway, unless they are trying to cross a highway where the speed is like 60mph/ 120km/h

[Nynax]

my choice i still want to survive. sucks for the pedestrians but honestly they should be more careful where they are going, look both ways and use all 5 sense to detect approaching traffic befor trying to cross the street. the chance of me hitting them is extremely low anyway, unless they are trying to cross a highway where the speed is like 60mph/ 120km/h

but you know that's not how its going to work out at all. Companies will use marketing to put a positive moral spin on all their programming decisions...but ultimatly the truth is that a legal payout to 5 families is a lot more money than the legal payout to just yours if something like that came up.

But like you said, it would be so stupid rare its barely worth mentioning.

[minteK917]

You can still stear the wheel of your current smart car. Which is why the owner/passenger is always at responsibility for accident.

[IIamaKing]

I know I would never drive in or own a car that would prioritize others over my family and myself.

[Nynax]

the point of this is what the car is programmed to do in the event the brakes fail

I actually kinda wonder if the 100% true driverless cars are going to force customers to maintain them more like software than traditional cars.

For example, the company might demand regular maintenance as part of the purchase. You could schedule appointments in advance, but after X amount of time the car will ONLY drive you to a dealership for a checkup, and nowhere else until you do it. Or if it detects a problem in the vehicle it might refuse to drive at all, and tell you to signal a mobile repair team or tow-tuck.

[Dedweight]

by the way. Let's say I have a Tesla and it has a glitch and it drives over 6 people and they all die while I have autopilot activated.

Whos fault is it?

I might be wrong but if I'm not a manual input overrides any automatic input with a Tesla so in that scenario you would be at fault.

[minteK917]

I might be wrong but if I'm not a manual input overrides any automatic input with a Tesla so in that scenario you would be at fault.

always is.

[announced]

but you know that's not how its going to work out at all. Companies will use marketing to put a positive moral spin on all their programming decisions...but ultimatly the truth is that a legal payout to 5 families is a lot more money than the legal payout to just yours if something like that came up.

But like you said, it would be so stupid rare its barely worth mentioning.

pedestrians still gotta have common sense to cross the road quickly if its
a) at night and they arent wearing reflective clothing
b) in a high speed zone while attempting foolishly to cross
c) jaywalking or not waiting for the light to change

most of the time they will probably jay walk in a 50 km/h or lower speed zone this means the car should detect them and slow down, no accidents at all. if they try to cross a highway (70km/h or 100 km/h)though its their own fault if they get hit especially since its usually illegal to do so.

i'm not buying a car that might someday murder me if it thinks it might hit pedestrians instead.

[Xar226]

Before I even bother to respond, realize that questions like these are purely hypothetical.

1. For starters, this is modeled after the Trolley Problem. It is a philosophical and moral question meant to spark discussion and study; it is literally not meant to have a "right answer." They can be exceptionally interesting to study, particularly by comparing changes in the results across small changes in the scenarios, but that's really all they are.

2. It's based on scenarios that basically don't exist. When have you ever heard of anybody facing a dilemma like this?

3. The car will never have enough information to truly make these decisions. It is never going to know the outcome of its actions. At best it can know how many people are in each direction it can choose. It's not going to know who survives and who dies. Pretending that information is known is what makes it so incredibly obvious that it's a thought problem and not a real one.

But if you really want to play the philosophical game? Hurt the person who is best protected. You don't plow a car into pedestrians, because the likelihood of a pedestrian surviving getting hit by a car is far smaller than the likelihood of a car passenger, with all of our modern safety features and, one hopes, seatbelts and airbags, surviving that crash. Try to minimize total harm. Rear-end accidents are far safer than veering into oncoming traffic and hitting head-on or sideswiping somebody.

(Oh look, turns out I'm fundamentally a utilitarian.)

[huckshuck]

i have one answer for this: self righteous bikers who bike too slow on curvy roads.