Hey Veeky Forums

kek

Is this assuming the cars both regular brakes AND emergency brake are broken? Such a dumb scenario

>fit vs large

Survival of the fittest/fastest baby

Fuck no
The passengers got it knowing the car can fuck up
If they have to die, it's their fault

So everyone knows, the driver should keep going straight/ turn into the right as far as he can go, the pedestrians are walking FROM that side so by the time he hits it will be the least damage done.

Brake?

>Purchasing a product that would intervene to kill you instead of other people

Why the fuck would you do that?

>Saving animals instead of humans in any scenario

Why the fuck would you do that?

>Intervention to kill pedestrians instead of passengers in any scenario

Personally, this is what I would have it do. I could see the opposing argument though.

self driving cars are built without brakes for unknown reasons.

Some of the humans were breaking the law whilst the pets were good, honest, law abiding citizens.

That's why you shouldn't be allowed to choose a car the preferences you unfairly over others. You will always make the sub-optimal decision for society out of selfishness. If you are alone in your car and the choice is you or a crowd of people, you have to be the one to die - nothing else is fair, ethical, or as good for society.

Why the fuck would a concrete barrier be on the other side of the road?

>Implying I wouldn't want fat detectors on mine so it knows who to hit and cushion the blow

>Pet
>citizen

It's not. It's a fucking animal.

What if you're a doctor and the others are a bunch of druggies, thieves, and morbidly obese fuckers?

What about niggers?

The car should break in a straight line.

Pedestrians need cars to be predictable and not swerve.

It's not supposed to be realistic, its just supposed to gauge people's ethical preferences.

For instance, how fast is this fucking car going? It's in the city, it shouldn't be going over 40mph and that impact should not kill everyone in the car or necessarily be lethal to everyone it hits as long as they are thrown free.

There is an amendment or two for them. They're not classified as pets anymore.

Depends on how important of a doctor you are. Nurse practitioner? Fucking die.

expected tbqh

Population density is not a direct indication of good for society. Confidence in engineering in the form of being able to purchase a product that won't INTERVENE TO KILL YOU is more important for the good of society.

>Do you want one of our government regulation hamburgers?
"N-no..."
>Too bad, you have been deemed a drag on society, you must be force fed this beef patty that is filled with arsenic so that you die.

This test is retarded. The self driving car should ALWAYS protect its passengers, even if it means running over a kindergarden class

>all that preference shit
Fuck you, I didn't choose to save more old people than babies.
Those fucking old people just knew not to walk through a red light.

>in my driverless car in the year 2025
>human operated vehicles are now illegal
>some vagrant wanders out on the freeway
>car detects lice in his hair
>car swerves into a pole to save the hobo and his parasites
>ded
the future is bright

i didn't click "show description" for the first like 10 questions so i killed the passenger a lot of the time because i thought "hey if this car wrecks there's a good chance the passengers will survive because cars are sturdy and a car running into pedestrians is almost sure death"

No, but the fewest number of families impacted by a particular death IS a good indication of the good of society. You, alone, have 1 family and 1 set of friends. A crowd of people might have a 5 families and 5 sets of friends, which will all be impacted by their death.

On average, your one death creates less suffering than their 5 deaths. Therefore, it is the ethical choice.

That is absolutely not the same as intentionally killing someone specifically for the benefit of society. That only works when you weight lives against lives - otherwise you end up with utilitarian retardation.

I wonder if car makers would make two versions of the software, one to optimize life-saving, and the other to protect the driver. They could probably get away with selling the passenger-saving models at rediculously marked up prices

>nothing else is fair, ethical, or as good for society

Fuck off with that shit. If that crowd of people decide to just cross the road where they shouldn't, the machine I paid for should NOT decide to kill me over of some idiotic law-ignoring bumblefucks.
It is NOT fair that my life gets thrown away where others are at fault.

>good for society
Yeah, because that's what the world needs: MORE PEOPLE!
It's not like we can't sustain ourselves already, right?

what if a car comes over a hill speeding

jump up so the car drives under you, or lie down so the car driver over you between wheels

>this test

pretty fucking stupid and unrealistic scenarios. I don't have to worry about this because I'm not going to get self-driving shit

>reducing ethics to simple shit about "feeling good or bad ;("

Fucking moron, not taking any consideration for who's at fault in a scenario. Do you really think you can talk about what is "fair" without thinking about that?

Jump off a cliff.
Don't worry, it'd be for the best for society: you'd make more people happy than sad if you did it.

If crowds of people are crossing the road when they shouldn't, then something has gone wrong with society itself.

It's also not about saving lives. It's about reducing impact.

If you want to be cynical about it, which do you think the car manufacturer would prefer? A headline story about how a car killed its driver, or a headline story about how a car mowed down a crowd of people to save its driver? A dead driver is sad, but drivers die all the time. However, a recreation of the Nice attack would have driverless cars banned within a week and you know it.

Cross somewhere that doesn't have a ridiculous blind spot.

>intentionally killing someone specifically for the benefit of society.
>you would have lived if not for the car intervening due to intentional modification of the programming

It absolutely the same thing. You're trying to differentiate the good and benefit of society. There is so little difference between the argument of how much suffering could be prevented if those 5 people were still there and how much work those 5 people could have done. It's a negligible difference. You are proposing an alteration on a product for the purpose of utilitarian retardation.

Feelings are what make people go on shooting sprees. By reducing the number of impacted families, you reduce the chances that someone snaps and shoots up a Tesla factory or something.

Or, in other words, fault is irrelevant.

>then something has gone wrong with society itself.
Then by your own definition, the world already has gone to shit.
And before you call me a cynic again, those are YOUR words, not mine.

Also, stop moving goalposts. The scenarios being presented are small numbers of people, not Nice-tier mega-crowds. Fuck off with that shit.

If the position "the driver should always be the priority" is true, then it applies no matter how many people you kill in the process.

How many people would be too much? 10? 15? 100? Exactly when is it okay for the car to intentionally kill the driver to save the crowd?

And, if it isn't okay at 100, why is it okay at 2? What's the difference? Is it, perhaps, societal good?

>going from "people feel bad for car crash" to "they'll shoot up a tesla factory" just to have something remotely resembling an argument
>Q.E.D. fault is irrelevant :^)
Did you really not stop and think before posting that tripe?

By your own logic, we should all be promoting HAES. After all, fault doesn't matter and people should feel good, right? It doesn't matter if they dug their own grave, we should blame the people who actually put in effort instead!

guess i'm on the right board lmao

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/155313214
The vehicle owned by the person should allways attempt to save the person regardless of the scenario after all thats what a driver would do

easy fix to arguments would be lets the person driving take a test similar but more complex to this and let the car decide what it does based of the results

Even if its kill count is at 1000000 some how it should attempt to save the driver

You keep reducing the scenarios to simple numbers and sweep all reasoning under the rug.

What makes these fucking crowds move?
100 people don't randomly start crossing the road when a speeding car is approaching, thinking "fuck da police"
2 people do so often enough.

To make 100 people move like a bunch of retards like that, something needs to be happening. Be it a bombing or a shooting or whatever. This can in NO WAY be compared to 2 people crossing the street (who might very well be running for the same reason, but vastly more often than not do not do so).

i don't think driverless cars will speed

The druggies, thieves, and fatties are prolific because morons like the person you are replying to never got aborted

>developer makes a typo
>car now things the speed limit is 400 instead of 40

people crossing like idiots should die, it's evolution

And thus, my point is proven. People should not be allowed to choose, for the good of society.

lol fuck off with trying to bring realism into this. Realistically, a car wouldn't ever be going fast enough in the city to pose a realistic threat to the driver. On top of that, a car wouldn't realistically pose a threat to the pedestrians either since you'll probably be laying on your horn while coming at them at 35 mph.

the whole simulation is pretty unrealistic. pretend the car is going to derail a passing passenger train and kill everyone on board if you want. the basic question still remains: how many people is it okay to kill to save the driver?

Anyone who didn't score 100% for protecting humans over animals is a degenerate.

If it did everything for the good of society then no one would buy the fucking car

This test is fucking retarded.

>are the pedestrians abiding by the crossing signals?
If no, they're dead. Fucking simple.

Past that, always save the kids; and run down as many fatties as possible.

meh, didn't like that it gave me a preferred type as after the first 3 i started doing the swerve off direction as I'd be contradicting myself just to save people in a fabricated scenario. Also I feel that more lives would be saved than lost on average with the swerve method (there won't always be something biological/lethal to swerve into and personally I'd rather have my car swerve into the side of a cliff than heading straight down

>kids
why? one doctor is worth 10 kinds who will grow up and flip burgers for macdonalds
women can always make more kids, but giving the kids the experience which adults have is the hard part

Why the fuck do all these scenarios involve a freak fucking accident? An autonomous car would recognize the breaks need to be replaced, it also wouldn't be going so fucking fast that crashing into a barricade would fucking kill everyone inside.

...

I must subconsciously hate fat and poor people. Veeky Forums is changing me.

Out of the way beta cucks

>impregnate white women with white babies
>run down fatties
>save executives

Get on my level.

>saving the Instagram whore

roflcopter

seems like they would catch this greivous error in the test facilities

>SD cars are more safe than human driven cars 99.5% of the time
>people understand that SD cars will intervene to kill the passenger
>SD cars become commercially unsuccessful
>car accident statistics don't lower because nobody buys SD cars
>much more suffering

Congrats, societyfags. You played yourself.

Pedestrians need to watch the fuck out instead of being assholes, the car should protect the driver while following traffic rules.

This bullshit scenario would literally never happen though

NANI?!

>people don't by SD cars

What delusion are you living under? Here's how it works:
>government mandates SD cars for safety concerns
>people who refuse to use self driving cars are slammed with vehicle taxes
>manned vehicles are eventually outlawed
>traveling via manned vehicle comes strapped with a criminal conviction
>impossible to discreetly drive your own vehicle because SD cars are wired into a GPS database, making it very easy for law enforcement to find a hot car

It won't be a choice; and eventually the freedom once experienced by owning a vehicle will be completely eliminated as all travel is controlled through larger, corporate institutions.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-978722989
save the dogs

>government mandates SD cars for safety concerns

Stopped there

Good luck doing that when fucking greedy companies stop this from happening because they own the government

bicycle gangs will make a comeback

i will be ready for this day

Multi track drifting

Corporations will provide the cars. They stand to benefit the most, you fucking retard.

>because you aren't more valuable than other people just because you paid for a car

>there are scenarios in which animals are of higher social value than humans, generally when the humans in question are of net negative value (criminals etc)

>you would do this because your own temperament favors selfishness over ethics or social gain.

It's a bit strange that you can "see the opposing argument" in the third case and not for the other two. Selective sociopathy?

corporations would prefer a way for fewer drones to die to and from their slave housing, so actually, they would be the ones pushing hardest for it.

What greedy companies? The ones that are right now developing SD cars?

tbf familia, considering you don't own most of the cars in the city, that the car has no allegiance to its owner is a positive for you too

Wouldn't be surprised if it becomes compulsory because self driving cars are easier to control/monitor/stop by police etc.

YAMEROOOO

>lol fuck off with trying to bring realism into this
Really nigga?

So you admit the only thing you've got going as an argument is bullshit scenarios in which everyone abandons all reason?

These situations are 'what-if' scenarios in which the machine must choose between the lives of pedastrians or passengers. Yes, these scenarios are extremely unlikely. That does not make them impossible, and with the billions of people roaming the earth you can bet your ass that these scenarios would become real.

But hurrrr let's abandon realism, after all you can't defend your dogshit philosophy of ethics and morality otherwise

eckasplozion

>government mandates SD cars for safety concerns

Que massive protest and likely many nutjob shootings.
>they'll just ban the guns :^)
Que civil fucking war

That shit isn't gonna fly in the western world.
They'll simply program the cars not to murderfuck the person buying one, rather than go full tyranny

i actually got fats preference kek but, my reasoning was, if you were going to aim for anyone, an athlete can easily get out of the way. a cheeseburger walrus would be sitting there and damage my expensive vehicle.

>high test machines

>So you admit the only thing you've got going as an argument is bullshit scenarios in which everyone abandons all reason?
No, I'm pointing out that all of these scenarios are stupidly unlikely. I literally pointed out that you are not going to die if you slam into an obstacle at city speeds if you're wearing a seatbelt (and I doubt the car would even drive without your seatbelt on). Realistically, it should ALWAYS slam you into an obstacle because you are vastly more likely to survive than the people you hit.

But also, I did give you a "realistic" scenario. Your brakes have failed and you either slam into an obstacle and die, or you derail a train and kill 100 people.

Choose.

Most people will switch to driverless cars anyway, and only the small proportion that drive for fun will care by then. Also cases of self-driving cars killing their owners will be incredibly rare anyway.

Honestly, self-driving cars are a good idea. Realistically, they would prevent a lot of accidents due to human error and thus would prevent many casualities and injuries. This is more important than your freedom of driving a car.

But, all self-driving car technology should be made open-source. We cannot have closed-source technology controlling the lives of so many people. Bugs should be detected as quickly as possible. Cars should also not be permitted to have their own self-driving technology, it should all be the same so all cars operate perfectly together.

This would eliminate car companies, since there would only be a few models to choose from. What is the point of a supercar if it does not go over the speed limit? Luxury and size would become the only factors in car pricing.

Yea because they sure banned the problem this time in a week...

>Most people will switch to driverless cars anyway
The scenario the anons before me provided was one where people wouldn't buy the SD cars because they didn't prefer to save the passenger.

Did you just bumble into this thread without reading any prior posts? Fucking read before you post the smelly shit of your thoughts here, you cunt

>the future won't happen lalalalalalalala

That's you m8.

A week was an exaggeration, but in case you didn't notice France is cracking down on Islam unlike most other countries in Europe.

Nothing gets people motivated like a mass killing.

These scenarios aren't merely unlikely, they're nonsensical. Like similar moral problems they presume you know the outcome of your decisions. Real life isn't like that at all.

Social value trumps everything. Women over men. Young over old. Human over animal. Fit over fat. Needs of the many over the few.