Moral machine, who should driverless cars kill?

[NineSpine]

they should aim at democrats.

Still mad about the civil rights act?

[Deleted]

Still mad about the civil rights act?

look at the world. Not so civil now is it?

[NineSpine]

look at the world. Not so civil now is it?

Violent crime is at a fifty year low in the U.S..

[Vynny]

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

What if the engine catches on fire?
What if a rock hits one of the motion sensor cameras and makes it so the car can't properly detect imminent collisions?
What if an axle breaks and the wheel flies off of the vehicle?

We can design cars that can detect moving objects around them and predict collisions based on velocity and proximity, but programming a machine to react to a mechanical failure within itself in real time isn't currently possible because of the sheer multitude of variables that need to be processed. The best we can do is to install sensors that make it so the car will immediately pull over and come to a stop in cases of imminent mechanical failures, but other than that there's not much we can do. I mean think about it, you have to take into account how the breaks fail (all breaks fail, only one, only some, reduced break capacity or none, etc.) and the environment around you like how many lanes there are, cars that are close by, people that are close by, whether it's a two way street or a one way street, whether you're on a bridge or not, the movement of the thing you're about to collide with, etc. in order to properly decide how to react to a mechanical failure. The point is you can't just program a predetermined scenario for the car to follow with something so varied because there's no one size fits all rule for such an event, so the question of "what the car is programmed to do in the event the breaks fail" is ridiculous in and of itself because it's currently impossible to program for that and manual override would probably be the only solution aside from a preventative sensor system stopping the car before such a mechanical failure happens.

[Canpinter]

What if the engine catches on fire?
What if a rock hits one of the motion sensor cameras and makes it so the car can't properly detect imminent collisions?
What if an axle breaks and the wheel flies off of the vehicle?

We can design cars that can detect moving objects around them and predict collisions based on velocity and proximity, but programming a machine to react to a mechanical failure within itself in real time isn't currently possible because of the sheer multitude of variables that need to be processed. The best we can do is to install sensors that make it so the car will immediately pull over and come to a stop in cases of imminent mechanical failures, but other than that there's not much we can do. I mean think about it, you have to take into account how the breaks fail (all breaks fail, only one, only some, reduced break capacity or none, etc.) and the environment around you like how many lanes there are, cars that are close by, people that are close by, whether it's a two way street or a one way street, whether you're on a bridge or not, the movement of the thing you're about to collide with, etc. in order to properly decide how to react to a mechanical failure. The point is you can't just program a predetermined scenario for the car to follow with something so varied because there's no one size fits all rule for such an event, so the question of "what the car is programmed to do in the event the breaks fail" is ridiculous in and of itself because it's currently impossible to program for that and manual override would probably be the only solution aside from a preventative sensor system stopping the car before such a mechanical failure happens.

we can actually program computers on what to do in those situations right now to some extent and within 5 years when driverless cars become more widespread our ability to have them make decisions will be much further along.

[Vash The Stampede]

Lots of people don't seam to understand the concept of the thought experiment, the car WILL crash all safety mechanisms have failed, now who dose the car prioritize and how much dose it value one life over the other? You cant answer with "we just use this safety mechanism or that one" because they have all failed.

It's a stupid thought experiment, because when something goes wrong, you can't predict how things will play out. Lets say the brakes go out. Would the car steer to kill, or the programming is so bad that it just ends up causing a five car pile up accident, killing you anyway in the process. Chances are it'll cause a massive five car pile up. Mainly because it's hard to create a scenario where things go wrong and there's a procedure to prevent bad things. Humans are no different. If you're in a car and the brakes go out, what do you do? Probably smashing on the brakes with all your force to stop the car, instead of pulling on the hand brake and throwing the car in neutral.

The scenario more likely to happen is an idiot jumps in front of the car and the computer calculates it can't stop in time, so it either kills the person or steers into a wall or something which results in your injury or just totally smashing your car. Now you have a situation where if people find out about this, they'll just jump in front of self driving cars and total your car, on purpose.

But the argument I'm trying to make is that the brake standards in cars today need to be more like sports cars, and that includes tires. Why do sports cars stop faster than regular cars? Makes no sense. First thing I do when I buy a car is do the brakes, cause there's lots of things you can do to increase the braking power in your car. A 2016 Scion comes with rear drum brakes. Are you shitting me? Drum brakes in 2016? That should be illegal. No wonder why people are debating who the car should kill, when econobox cars come equipped with brakes from the 1970's.

As far as I'm concerned we're having the wrong thought experiment. Why don't we tell capitalism to fuck off and make it mandatory that every car sold should have sports car like brakes and tires?

[Canpinter]

It's a stupid thought experiment, because when something goes wrong, you can't predict how things will play out. Lets say the brakes go out. Would the car steer to kill, or the programming is so bad that it just ends up causing a five car pile up accident, killing you anyway in the process. Chances are it'll cause a massive five car pile up.

The scenario more likely to happen is an idiot jumps in front of the car and the computer calculates it can't stop in time, so it either kills the person or steers into a wall or something which results in your injury or just totally smashing your car. Now you have a situation where if people find out about this, they'll just jump in front of self driving cars and total your car, on purpose.

But the argument I'm trying to make is that the brake standards in cars today need to be more like sports cars, and that includes tires. Why do sports cars stop faster than regular cars? Makes no sense. First thing I do when I buy a car is do the brakes, cause there's lots of things you can do to increase the braking power in your car. A 2016 Scion comes with rear drum brakes. Are you shitting me? Drum brakes in 2016? That should be illegal. No wonder why people are debating who the car should kill, when econobox cars come equipped with brakes from the 1970's.

As far as I'm concerned we're having the wrong thought experiment. Why don't we tell capitalism to fuck off and make it mandatory that every car sold should have sports car like brakes and tires?

why not have both decent ties/brakes and self driving car with decent programming for these situations? and do you really think there will be any significant number of people that try to jump in front of a car intending to make it swerve out of the way?

[Vash The Stampede]

why not have both decent ties/brakes and self driving car with decent programming for these situations?

The main issue here is that if the car never makes an attempt to avoiding killing someone, then someone is liable, and that means the car manufacturer or software company is liable. Which means the car will almost always try to avoid hitting someone, regardless of what is morally right. People will always side with money. If the car does hit the pedestrian to save the drivers life, the family of that person could sue Google, Tesla, or whatever. The driver and passengers are almost certainly screwed.

Also from KITT vs KARR from Knight Rider, you can see what happens when the car protects itself vs others. That was the premise of KITT vs KARR, where KITT would sacrifice itself to save a human life while KARR was more interested in protecting itself. Ultimately it was KITT that was considered the superior design. Think about it, what would happen if the car would always put you above others? If the car needed new brakes and the owner didn't service them as they should, and now the car is programmed to hit people rather than avoid hitting them, you'd have an epidemic on your hands. You'd also have insurance issues, as they might increase your premium if they knew your car would rather hit people than hit a wall. You being dead is no real issue for them.

Just some interesting info, here's the difference between sports cars and regular cars.

2016 Scion iA 30-0 in 31ft
2014 Corvette 30-0 in 23ft
Tesla Model S 30-0 in 27ft

and do you really think there will be any significant number of people that try to jump in front of a car intending to make it swerve out of the way?

People in Russia are doing it for the money.

[Rudkobing]

Jesus. Then he'll come back the very next day.

[Wikko]

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.

This is pretty much just a legislative problem which would be handled once automatic cars become every day things. Most likely all the cars would still require human monitoring at all times and therefore he would be liable to any damage caused.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Not really. You can't currently morally or legally compel someone to kill themselves in order to avoid harm to others. The vehicle is acting as an extension of that principle.

Not really, the vehicle is more akin to second hand smoke, or driving a car that doesn't have proper brakes, or could explode at any time. Thats why restaurants started giving the option of no smoking sections.. because smokers are choosing to do something that intentionally harms others.

[kail]

Violent crime is at a fifty year low in the U.S..

He said "look at the world", obviously democrats are to be blamed for anything bad happening around the world.

- - - Updated - - -

lol you say that now but...have you seen the terminator movies? didnt we learn anything from them?

I saw snakes on a plane. Main reason I don't like flying, never know when that will happen in my plane.

[Deleted]

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.

I agree. The car should obviously always try to minimize damage to other people but if the choice was putting me and my baby in to a cement wall at 50mph or driving trough pedestrians it should opt to drive trough the pedestrians but break and swerve as much as possible.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I agree. The car should obviously always try to minimize damage to other people but if the choice was putting me and my baby in to a cement wall at 50mph or driving trough pedestrians it should opt to drive trough the pedestrians but break and swerve as much as possible.

A) That would possible cause harm to more than just 2 people.

B) Suddenly swerving at 50 MPH (towards a crowd of pedestrians in your example) would probably just flip your car and roll said car into the crowd.. so that'd be worse.

C) You're the one who bought a self driving car, so you should also be the one injured. The other people in this scenario are innocent and their lives should be valued more.

D) If this decreases the sale of self driving cars, so be it.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...that an accident will happen is inevitable. It's the aftermath that should be looked at.

[Karrotlord]

A) That would possible cause harm to more than just 2 people.

B) Suddenly swerving at 50 MPH (towards a crowd of pedestrians in your example) would probably just flip your car and roll said car into the crowd.. so that'd be worse.

C) You're the one who bought a self driving car, so you should also be the one injured. The other people in this scenario are innocent and their lives should be valued more.

D) If this decreases the sale of self driving cars, so be it.

A) Correct, so what?

B) Absolutely

C) So the baby is now responsible for brakes failing without warning?

D) That would be very bad for both driver and pedestrian safety as self driving cars are much safer outside of this pie-on-the-sky thought experiment.

[Shadowferal]

D) That would be very bad for both driver and pedestrian safety as self driving cars are much safer outside of this pie-on-the-sky thought experiment.

Your claim is more "pie-in-the-sky" as such vehicles aren't even a reality yet.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

A) Correct, so what?

B) Absolutely

C) So the baby is now responsible for brakes failing without warning?

D) That would be very bad for both driver and pedestrian safety as self driving cars are much safer outside of this pie-on-the-sky thought experiment.

A) We should be aiming for less people to be harmed.

B) Again, swerving at all just to save the selfish driver would be more dangerous for everyone.

C) The baby is under the care of the adult who bought/used the car.

D) Driverless cars are fairly new, so I'm not really going to agree on that one.

[Karrotlord]

Your claim is more "pie-in-the-sky" as such vehicles aren't even a reality yet.

Most driving accidents are caused by human error. That's part of why public transit and flight are safer, less inputs lead to less errors. Replace the human with something that has better reaction time and you have less problems. It's pretty simple, I think.

- - - Updated - - -

A) We should be aiming for less people to be harmed.

Let's just get this outta the way since it's the crux of the issue.

If you're brakes failed on a crowded street, what would you, personally, do?

ps: I was agreeing with you on the swerving.

[Shadowferal]

Most driving accidents are caused by human error. That's part of why public transit and flight are safer, less inputs lead to less errors. Replace the human with something that has better reaction time and you have less problems. It's pretty simple, I think.

And again...your claim is predicated on non-existent data.