Moral machine, who should driverless cars kill?

[Deleted]

I could keep telling you you're wrong all day, but what would be the point?

You don't understand how Argumentation or Logical conclusion works, do you?

What you observe, is that there is a Study. Gathering Data. That is all you know.

What is the Data used for? We don't know. What span of possibilities, is there for the set of data?

Many, but it's subjective to the one holding the study.

What you propose? That people invest resources, into making something, with no payout. In regards to a institute that is known for it's Science.

Conclusion? You are dense.

[OrcsRLame]

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.)

The utilitarian thing to do is actually to hurt the pedestrians. ~30,000 people die in car accidents every year in the US alone. When driverless cars become just a little more advanced, if we can get everyone to adopt them, that number will drop astronomically. Anything that hurts the development or adoption of this technology is directly against utilitarian principles.

[Deleted]

Where the hell are you driving that the risk of killing pedestrians is so high, and it can't put on the breaks in time?

The 20mph limit here in residential areas means even kids shooting out between cars after a ball or something will generally be okay in a collision.

Anyway, if I bought the car, I'd expect it to put my safety first.

[Daerio]

Where the hell are you driving that the risk of killing pedestrians is so high, and it can't put on the breaks in time?

Fantasy land, you might have to ditch your car into a unicorn.

[Deleted]

Fantasy land, you might have to ditch your car into a unicorn.

After all, it's some Random Shitposters opinion versus MiT. Clearly, the MMO-C run of the Mill shitposter, will know better.

He has a Track record of 5k+ posts, after all.

And he has a compelling argument, to boot ; his own personal assurance, that he is a valid source.

[Daerio]

After all, it's some Random Shitposters opinion versus MiT. Clearly, the MMO-C run of the Mill shitposter, will know better.

He has a Track record of 5k+ posts, after all.

And he has a compelling argument, to boot ; his own personal assurance, that he is a valid source.

MIT is gathering the data, you're the one assigning outrageous significance to it. Not them.

Appeal to false authority fallacy? Get some brains of your own and ask somebody to show you how to use them.

[Khadgar]

Several car companies are developing exterior air bags to protect pedestrians, just slap them on the self driving cars.

[OrcsRLame]

Prediction: Even if people are aware of it that 30.000 ppl die now in car accidents and the number will drop astronomically with self-driven carse, there will be a shitstorm and people with torches and pitchforks for ever death with a driverless car.

It is like reporting any planecrash is still a sensation and people are afraid to board planes (give up control, I guess?) although planes are by far the safest means of traffic (or was it trains?)

Indeed, you're 110% right. That's why the smart people need to do everything they can to get everyone else to adopt driverless cars. If it ever came to light that your car might choose to kill you or your family over other people, it could set the technology back decades.

[Deleted]

MIT is gathering the data, you're the one assigning outrageous significance to it. Not them.

Appeal to false authority fallacy? Get some brains of your own and ask somebody to show you how to use them.

The fact that they are gathering it to begin with, suggests use.

Unless, of course, you are so dense that you'd propose that MiT would gather Data for no reason.

And as it stands, this IS your opinion, versus MiT. You suggest you know, MiT merely stands to reason that it is gathering data.

I say your opinion, in face of MiT, is wrong, then. But you are too stupid to understand, clearly.

[Huntermyth]

This is going to sound really bad and selfish but I'd never 'drive' a car that would kill me to save other people. I'd rather have it kill other people.

So if the choice were between me and a group of pedestrians, please car kill the pedestrians.

spoken like a true republican.

[Ealyssa]

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

Because magic doesnt exist and failure will always happen ? That's a stupid question, really...

[Templar 331]

Because magic doesnt exist and failure will always happen ? That's a stupid question, really...

Do you know why we have airbags in vehicles now? Aren't seat belts good enough? Why only stop with one safety appliance when it is better to have more. If one set of brakes fail why not have an emergency set? Could both fail? Sure, but what are the chances that your seat belt AND your airbag fail?

Maybe instead of lobbing insults use your brain to come up with a better counter argument than "magic."

[Shadowferal]

I'll never drive such a vehicle that encourages a lack of situational awareness and control over the vehicle. And I certainly dislike any tech that could possibly usurp my own decisions, or tech that allows outside agencies to know my location 24/7.
It's probably fortunate that I won't live long enough to see such a thing implemented. Or the laws that will needed to be re-addressed. (liability issues, human vs. machine, etc.,)

[nextormento]

What if the person in the car is an unconscious violinist?

[Shadowferal]

That's what taxicabs are for...

[Deleted]

Do you know why we have airbags in vehicles now? Aren't seat belts good enough? Why only stop with one safety appliance when it is better to have more. If one set of brakes fail why not have an emergency set? Could both fail? Sure, but what are the chances that your seat belt AND your airbag fail?

Maybe instead of lobbing insults use your brain to come up with a better counter argument than "magic."

Assuming self-driving cars happen at about the same time Electric cars are really taking hold, you can also just lock the motors driving the wheels, just for one possible solution.

Failing that, it could fire a safety mechanism that deploys huge inflatables from panels in the bumpers.

"who would it kill" doesn't really need to be a discussion if we're talking about automated safety features, because the only reasonable answer to that is "nobody".

[Canpinter]

Assuming self-driving cars happen at about the same time Electric cars are really taking hold, you can also just lock the motors driving the wheels, just for one possible solution.

Failing that, it could fire a safety mechanism that deploys huge inflatables from panels in the bumpers.

"who would it kill" doesn't really need to be a discussion if we're talking about automated safety features, because the only reasonable answer to that is "nobody".

All safety mechanisms have a chance to fail, by not discussing this and coming to some conclusion whatever it is your simple kicking the can down the road and letting chance deiced. Your not abstaining from making a choice on who it should kill your just picking chance as your answer.

[Shadowferal]

I think one thing will eventually be mandated; If you're in the vehicle, regardless of whether you're in the driver's seat or not, if an accident occurs you will be held liable as it should be assumed that you are capable of taking control of the vehicle.

[Ealyssa]

Do you know why we have airbags in vehicles now? Aren't seat belts good enough?

And yet people are still dying... Your argument is still dumb. No matter how much precaution we will take, failure will still happen. So the question is how the AI will handle the failure not how many time the failure may happen, period.

How smart you think "herp just put a second set of brakes" was, is irrelevant in the discussion.

[Deleted]

All safety mechanisms have a chance to fail, by not discussing this and coming to some conclusion whatever it is your simple kicking the can down the road and letting chance deiced. Your not abstaining from making a choice on who it should kill your just picking chance as your answer.

Sure all mechanisms have a chance to fail, which is why you have more than one in place, and automated systems can respond far quicker than the average driver.

Still, I said earlier that if I bought the car, I expect it to prioritise my safety, even if I think the whole scenario is a bit silly.