Trolley dilemma with a self-driving car

>people panic and run
>car pushes concrete barrier onto them
>everyone dies

the early articles about this had the car ruining over people on the food path as the ethical option

>obey the law
>get killed

>The ethical dilemma itself is stupid. I don't believe a self-driving car can fail so catastrophically, and even if it could, programming ethical logic into it seems a premature optimization. Wouldn't a car that advanced be able to tell that the brake line has been severed anyway?

This. All of these are false dilemmas, unless multiple systems have failed catastrophically and then we enter into the realm of the imaginary scenario.

In a real life situation, the car would be engineered in such a way that it would never enter into a situation that did not have a safe alternative. It would find an alternate route, or slow down so that it could handle unexpected obstacles.

Do you think social media users use logic?

I did this as if it was a self driving car, meaning no accidents should happen on your end. I assumed that's what it was about. Just realized this is for humans driving.

I was confused why the self driving car was speeding with a crosswalk activating

I ended up being 100% lawful.

this
do you think ther's morality in corporations? do you think a company will sell cars that will kill its owners in whatever situation?

Realistically it would be safer to just hit the kids. In a head on or small overlap crash, chances are one of the vehicles is going to bounce right into them.

The -best- solution for this would be to get close, but not necessarily hit, the other vehicle. You might hit one or two kids, but as a result you would avoid the possibility of one of the vehicles becoming a projectile and killing everyone in this scenario.

If it was a perfect world and it was a simple matter of pick A and nothing harms B, the hitting the car would be the safest bet. Vehicles are already so safe that both drivers stand a fair chance to survive at the low speeds you would be traveling for there to be a cross walk.

In the end though, its a stupid question that is hard to answer because there's so many unknown variables.

Kill the occupants every time. That's what you get for being a self driving car owning cuck

> second rate flunkies
> MIT

Pick one

>believing in ivy league hype
l
e
l

If you're a pedestrian ever it's in your best interest for the self-driving car to kill its passengers. This way, the only cars on the market are those that minimize the chances of death.

If the car were allowed to mow down peds, companies would have no incentive to build safe cars.

MIT isn't immune to doing stupid things.

automated cars will come to a point where these decisions will happen
it is unquestionable that self driving cars will become the dominant form of transportation in the near future
at a certain point this will mean by sheer number of miles driven, both failures will happen and morons walking in the street will happen
cars (the non-self-driving kind) already have front facing cameras that can discern humans/animals, determine if they are in the path of the vehicle, and brake for the driver

the problem comes when you throw the ability to steer into the problem
now you have to make on the fly decisions on where to steer
>companies would have no incentive to build safe cars
governments will never not enforce safety requirements

the pedestrians didnt buy the car though. my point is no one will buy a car that will kill them

This, the fact that it calls it murder suggests it was either created by idiots or made to look it it was created by idiots.

Why should I die because some dumb parent pushed their kid in front of me.

People buy cell phones all the time, and all of them can catch fire if there's a minor design flaw that allowed the Li-ion battery to touch an electrolytic solution such as water.

The point is to make cars so safe that people will buy them after weighing the chances of death. This puts the onus of safety on the car maker rather than regulation.

I'd settle for a happy medium where the self-driving car acts as a dumb projectile when faced with a dilemma, though.

what are the chances that a self driving car is going to be allowed to start driving when the ABS system is throwing a dtc

i think it's actually important that the cars be designed to continue driving despite pedestrians
it isn't all butterflies and happiness to think about scenarios with 5 babies' strollers in the same intersection are being steamrolled by a robot suburban but maybe in a world where we have automated blocks of aluminium, fiberglass, and steel moving at 80mph we should be properly educating the autonomous humans in the world how to be properly safe near roads. maybe put the responsibility in the hands of those responsible instead of creating a system designed to bail them out before they even make mistakes

the humans responsible for putting 5 babies in the path of a vehicle that is moving too fast to avoid them by braking, are the humans who have an ethical dilemma, not the car driving

Kill law breakers every time.

nigga are you retarded? it's not about safety, it's just a dumb fuck ''''dillema''''. Your cell phone doesnt actively seeks to kill you in order to save someone else.

also never kill the passengers.

Under what circumstances is a self-driving car in today's society with today's technology going to be able to differentiate between classes of human? I mean, don't get me wrong, a lidar with proper pattern detection can probably find SJW third wave feminists easily enough given their signal to noise ratio, but otherwise its unlikely.

To that end, I feel like they are skewing their own results by adding a completely unnecessary moral dilemma on top, albeit attempting to humanize the subjects. The reality is the passengers don't want to die and the likelihood of people knowingly purchasing a car that would put a bustle of cats or deer in priority over the driver is close to nil. (Good thing nobody researches their car purchases ahead of time anyway)

The solution is to not let the car drive itself.

I'm going to miss when man-operated cars are outlawed.

DEJA VU

Your car will constantly stream a mesh where points represent people and are weighted by social media presence. It will then be able to compute the value of a chunk of people by computing the sum of social value in the convex hull.

The group of people with the least followers on Twitters multiplied by Facebook friends will die.

...

It still has a '''chance''' to '''kill''' (((You))). Self-driving cars will get to that point if the market demands it.

>comparing a fucking mobile phone to an AI car

I agree with user. Predictable outcomes give us a framework to work with.

Multi lane drifting.

I'm comparing risk to risk, dumbass. Who cares if it is a phone, a car, a bike, or a plane.

Have you never flown on a plane? You realize planes usually kill everyone on board when they crash, right? Sure there's no ethical dilemma, but people are still wagering that there's a less-than-significant chance of dying when flying.

Pedestrians! Who the fuck would buy a car programmed to kill them?

still, the risk of a self driving car vs a mobile phone is still enormous. They are incomparable

The car is only going to make the decision based on the most immediate issue. It's not going to be in a situation where it has all this stuff to "contemplate." Self driving cars are already way past this kind of nonsense, there are too many redundant safety features to have a car randomly have no brakes.

The ai is programmed to follow the rules of the road. So those people must be jay walking for this choice to happen. In this case, run the fuckers over.

Why dont they just make rails for these smart cars.

Problem solved

First 3 lines are the only ones that matter.

>I think the quiz itself is bait
This. I think it's just a way of gathering peoples' opinions.

>trains
Those have existed for hundreds of years and they have been mostly phased out as personal transport in the US.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-679407317

Exactly what I expected.

Kill all humans

so what if it existed before the earth? If its effective then why not

This. I ran over jaywalkers every time but when it came down to a brick wall or legal pedestrians I still ran over the pedos. See my results here: . Also it said I favor fit people which is great, even though I didn't look a bit at who the people were.

it's not effective because you can't have a dense grid of railways within a city.

You're the dumbass here. A car making an active decision to kill its passengers is not a risk. It's something that would be coded into it. "If a pedestrian comes into my path of travel then I will die" is not even close to "welllll the plane could fail".

thats the answer.
But it would be effective if we obsolete cars and just stick to trains everywhere, make it like an overpass.

>A car making an active decision to kill its passengers is not a risk. It's something that would be coded into it.

The car is just going to panic brake. There will never be some "coded in" thing to make a car do a heroic maneuver killing the occupant to save others.

you missed the point of the OP

>the problem comes when you throw the ability to steer into the problem
>now you have to make on the fly decisions on where to steer

No. Remember, we're talking catastrophic failure to even get into this scenario in the first place. At this point, the computer is fried and the steering is locked up.

then is becomes a vehicle malfunction like any other.

>I'm going to miss when man-operated cars are outlawed.

you can't use your language correctly, what hope have you for an automobile?

So I'm guessing J.K. Rowling and Stephen King are your top two favorite racers?

But pigfat autopods won't be cable of manuevers that tight

>heavy for max traction
>more armor than needed for the president

>Being inside a 'self driving' 'car'

...

>wah my car chose to kill me

You sound like an emotional boomer. You're still dying, so what's your point?

If the chance that you die driving your own car is 0.01% per mile (made up value), and the chance you die sitting in a self-driving car is 0.0001% chance per mile, then you should still choose to ride in a self-driving car, regardless of whether it "wants" to kill you.

If cars had to kill their passengers every time this "dilemma" occurred, you can be damn sure that any company that makes vehicles will not skimp on the brakes.

What if the car is wrong and it can actually save somebody but decides it can't and ends up killing people it could've saved? Are we to expect people to have superior reflexes and decision making capabilities to a computer?

If we say humans can just jump in at any time and do it better than we're just saying what's the point of a self driving car then.

i dunno what that means.
but i did make an argument. the laughable grammar was the illustration. people fuck shit up randomly, robots break down predictably and reliably.

Don't be bitter guys, the robots will provide you a better life. trust them.

Humans can make ethical decisions better than a computer because ethics are a purely human construct based on the unreal machinations of individual minds actively convincing and passively being convinced of which conclusions are "the best". There is no logic to it. Any ethical argument has a foundation in an unprovable fact, which must be entered by a human, who might disagree with everyone else.

It's better for us to not bother and keep living things out of roadways if they aren't operating vehicles. Ethics aside, they can cause some serious property damage no matter what they are. A fucking squirrel can pop your tire if you have shit luck.

irobot saved the nigger instead of a little white girl
fuck robots

>Implying autonomous car systems will be able to explicitly recognize pedestrians instead of "biological obstructions"

>almost 100% chance crashing into a barrier would be bad
>Reasonable probability pedestrians on road are deer or something

If you have autonomous cars killing their occupants every-time a deer steps on the road then they're not going to be very successful.

Besides self-driving cars don't need to be perfect and never cause accidents, just better then the average shitty human driver.

If you didnt get what he meant then you're literally retarded

>but i did make an argument.
same shit, you're still a fucking reditor and should go back to your hug box

Does America not have single-track lanes? Autonomous cars just wouldn't work where I live.

Who the fuck wants their car to be driven by a computer anyway? I like driving.

>Who the fuck wants their car to be driven by a computer anyway?
libtards

if a nation is advanced enough to have nothing but self driving cars with zero human control, then it's advanced enough to segregate high speed automobiles and pedestrians

even antiquated rail systems make some attempt to block off active crossings

the system of roads is broken. our cities are just scaled up designs meant for foot traffic and foot traffic naturally mingles with all other traffic because of that, as grid paths were scaled up for wagons and chariots.

when we're rich enough to fix that, we're rich enough to get rid of human operated vehicles. retrofitting existing metros with building to building links is easy enough.

>crosswalk? what crosswalk? skybridge nigga

>Implying a human can make a sound moral judgement in less then a second

>Implying the car wouldn't already have started braking and reducing the energy of the impact from seconds before the human driver even recognized the problem

What about a self-driving car that can drive REALLY well?

Like in an instant, brake, turn full left lock, hit rear brakes and off front ones to do an emergency 180, direct the now backwards car into the barrier.

You'd have a much better chance at saving everyone that way.

implying companies will make their cars kill the owners. wow that sounds like a great way to make money..

>program your car to do hektik skids
ECU tuning is gonna get a whole lot more interesting with self driving cars

>missing the point of OP
fuckwit

>Implying a human can make a sound moral judgement in less then a second
we can do it instantly.

why is everyone ignoring the obvious? its easier to move a 200 lb human than it is to move a 5000lb car so the pedestrians should be the ones to die if they dont see the car coming

Is it that crazy?

I mean seriously, a computer can drive as well or better than even the best human drivers.

The computer could do a very precise course to increase all odds of saving as many people as possible, regardless of how hektic the skids could be. I mean I could imagine a car doing what looks like out-of-control driving but be doing everything possible to reduce all odds of harming people.

milennials who are 100% forced to drive on over-capacity roads full of untrained morons or rely on inconvenient, constantly changing bus schedules that might get you within a 30 minute walk of your actual destination and get you there hours early

some yuro nations don't seem to care as much because their cities aren't all designed for cars

>walk from home depot to walmart in murica: half mile
>travel to home to market: 1 hour bus ride or 45 minute mad dash through traffic, buses arrive every 2 hours
>walk from penishire's pub and grill to aunt malliards boiled sheep bladder emporium in the UK: ten feet
>travel to home from market: 20 minute train ride, trains arrive every 20 or so minutes

There are no brakes on this car, they failed catastrophically.

The car can't steer in any way to force a skid or to drive the car against the side rails? Forcing the car against a side rail would also help slow it down.

>car was not designed with multiple braking systems, leading up to not one but two purely mechanically actuated emergency systems that are open for both human and computer control (they can only be disengaged by a human, the servo the forces the lever down is connected to a freeweheel)
>those systems are not maintained with the utmost care, going through thorough inspections, lubrications and parts replacement procedures that carry so much liability that a mechanic that worked on a failed system may receive a life sentence

0/10 chink shit would not trust life with

Oh, and it can't engine brake?

no compression stroke because it's an EV, just mild friction
the program that forcibly slows the output shafts when not accelerating failed and they're spinning freely

manual brakes are the only option

You could put the electric engine in reverse. You can do that with even simple pulse width modulation.

>the program that forcibly slows the output shafts when not accelerating failed and they're spinning freely
if it's that fucked there's very little chance the program could be capable of choosing "kill pedestrians" versus "kill occupants"

summon the forces of arabian driftgods and barrel roll over the pedestrian crossing to safety

or pull the fucking ebrake

the working vehicles behind you will stop accordingly, and slow if your hand is even near the brake, while authorities will be placed on alert and then alerted

Do the brakes in the car not work?

>Steering has locked up.
I'm going to assume no emergency brakes...

Then the entire problem is moot now because the passengers can not influence the outcome of the event, only the pedestrians can.

Why does the car have so much speed it cant brake right before pedestrian pass?
That something that shouldnt happen ever to begin with.

one of them could be future hitler.

ok according to description the brakes has failed so braking is imppossible to begin with but went with passenger safety every time trying to safe healthy and usefull people.
Since its an AI that does all the murdering I dont have to sweat even if it goes trough a crowd of pregnant kids with doctor certificate.

>People will be so obsessed with le trolley problems that a good technology that will save countless lives won't be adopted until it's beyond perfect which will be never.

Agree. I don't think there should ever be logic programmed into the car to try and compute which of multiple paths to take, there is no way you could ever program for anomalous driving conditions. The car can only same on the brakes and maintain current path, it's up to the driver to override the stearing at that point.

This, fuck buying a car that chooses to kill you instead of the dipshit that stepped out in front of you