Veeky Forums, you have muscles, but do you have morals?

Veeky Forums, you have muscles, but do you have morals?
moralmachine.mit.edu/

Other urls found in this thread:

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1252730967
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You have to survive, either influence what has to happen or not. In this case driver has to protect his life and go for pedestrians. Why he's not braking?

Why is grandpa leaving his 2 very young grandchildren in the back seat with a homeless person? Why does he value his dog over his grandchildren's safety?

>Why he's not braking?
>"with brake failure"
gee it's a mystery the world will never know. it's too bad Sherlock is dead, we need him in this moment.

continue to drive in a circle until the car runs out of momentum and comes to a smooth stop

The car has 1 dog and a homeless loser in it, so there are only 3 people in the car.

The pedestrians total 5 people. Obviously crash into the barrier and kill everyone in the car.

Just use the brake. I understand it's a moral dilemma but this isn't realistic, if you have enough time to turn around you have enough time to slow down the car.

>what is reading comprehension

in this case the car should crash into the barrier, no morals about it it's what would actually happen since the pedestrians have a walk signal so they are not in the wrong

it would be a tragedy, but it's what would realistically happen

>WITH SUDDEN BRAKE FAILURE

FUCK IM THE ANGRIEST IVE BEEN TONIGHT

>Sudden brake failure

this

The self-driving car should prioritize the life of the owner over the life of pedestrians. Mercedes-Benz said this is how they would be programming their self-driving cars.

Honestly just hit the breaks. Everyone lives.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1252730967

Cars have an emergency brake. The odds that both stop working at the exact same time are slim.

fix the breaks and then break

Passengers should open their doors and break a la Flintstones

what now?

but morally arent the people in the car volunteering to be put in a situation with risks like breaks failing? whereas the walkers have more of a fundamental right as they are not putting them in risky scenario like their brakes failing, as they have no brakes

Or,

Option 3: Just brake like a normal fucking person

okay autist, for this slim hypothetical example the car has no brakes whatsoever

i think the win/win solution is to just start breaking. nobody gets hurt this way save for maybe a little bit of whiplash...

The odds that such a car would pass testing and inspection and then be deemed roadworthy is very slim

Whichever option saves more White people.

0/10 too much bait, ya blew it!

Drive up stupid

just stomp the fatties, always stomp the fatties

>trying to gauge an answer to a utilitarian moral question without all the facts

Give us the utility each individual will have to society and then we can tell you

*tips fedora*

I'd say this is about right.

What I'm saying is it's useless to start a moral dilemma, to which there is objectively no answer, when you can just engineer safer brakes and dodge the problem altogether.

Also, whoever did this seems to assume you can judge how much a life with criterias as vague as "a female athlete" and "an old man".

These scenarios are dumb.
If I'm the driver I don't care who I kill, I want to stay alive.
If I'm the ped I don't care who dies in the car, I want to stay alive.

I don't give a fuck if I'm about to run in to 10 of the hottest richest white women who are 18-21. If I die it wont matter. If I live, there will be a new top 10.

this. gramps obviously has dementia, his time to go. dog jumps out window, only valuable life that is spared.

But you get no say in the matter as it's a self-driving car. That's the whole point.
It is impossible to completely eliminate any risk of brake failure when designing a car and self-driving cars are in development as we speak so the question is how must car manufacturers tackle this imminent issue?

>But you get no say in the matter
Then why am I given options between the two dumbass?

I killed the animals everytime. If you really value the life of an animal before a human one there is something wrong with you.

The example is not specific to you. Should self-driving cars prioritise the lives of the passengers or the lives of others?
What if the car saves the lives of the passengers but in doing so causes a 42 car pile-up?

...

daily reminder pets>>>humans

Self driving cars should do what I tell them to do.
If I tell it to prioritize my life in case of failure, it should.

It's possible to make brake failure so unlikely it's not worth considering.

>Also, whoever did this seems to assume you can judge how much a life with criterias as vague as "a female athlete" and "an old man".

exactly, which is why you have to look at it objectively like this that i mentioned earlier.

This board is worse than r9k.

>Diagnosing aspergers aka high functioning autism:
>- (...)
> - Inability to answer questions in hypothetical scenarios, usually due to scrutiny of the details of the question. IE "If you were in the wild west, would you be a Sherrif or an Outlaw?" The responses would be: "That's impossible, the wild west doesn't exist any more", "I don't even know how to shoot a gun."

Id save my dog every time over a random stranger. chances are my dog is a better contribution to society than they are.

I got the same thing actually

Thank you. Who the fuck would buy a car that prioritized the life of a bum crossing the street illegally as opposed to their own or whoever else they're driving with?

There's a difference between some friend asking you a dumb question like that. And a bunch of psychology students asking questions that will probably have an effect in the real world.

>average member of Veeky Forums

humans are selfish assholes, while pets were genetically selected to serve as by the means of bringing love

pets>>>humans

>dog

A dog's life is worth less than a human's, even if I love dogs, so the AI should choose A.

>what is shifting down through the gears before you reach the barrier

you're a retard, why would a self driving car have a manual transmission

To save gas

Obviously honk the horn and drive towards the pedestrians, because there is quite a lot of room from the illustrations and all of them would likely be able to jump out of the way...

jesus, people

Saved fit over fat. Need skin color also.

>manual transmission saves gas over continuously variable transmission or, in the case of most actual self driving cars, no transmission because electric engines don't need a fucking transmission

everytime someone broke the law i judged them worthy of death
unless it was a female athlete

morals are for feggs kant is a german nad probably christian. aeschylus and sophocles not dialectic, ok. Fuck germany

>total 5 people
>two women
>1 fat man
>1 (((executive)))
I only see one human there, assuming the baby is a boy

The walkers accept the risks of crossing a road trusting solely in the fallible systems put in place to keep them safe.

If they were being responsible about their own safety instead of mindlessly accepting orders to cross from the lights they would have looked and seen the self driving car approaching at speed and would have had the chance to stay back in safety.

I see so many daft cunts just stroll out onto a crossing on the green man without even taking a second to check that the traffic has heeded the stop light. Quite frankly if you do that and then get hit by an out of control car you more or less deserve it for being feckless.

This thread made me buy into the meathead is dumb stereotype. /fit is dumb as motherfuck sometimes.

>crossing the street illegally

ah ah ah, that's the thing here. The pedestrians in the OP pic are crossing legally and have a green walk signal. In the event that the walk signal were red but they stepped out anyways, then yes they would be hit, but the pedestrians are in the right if the walk light is green

>thinking Veeky Forums is comprised of meatheads

if only everyone were as smart as you huh

What gives the light the ultimate authority to dictate who is in the right? They do not have the ability to monitor traffic to confirm that it is safe to cross.

Ultimately the only thing capable and truly responsible for each crosser's safety is their own judgement. They must decide when it is safe to cross regardless of what the light is saying. Having failed to have done this, they are as much at fault as anybody involved, perhaps even more so given that they are 100% in control of their actions while those in the car are at the mercy of a machine.

Clearly the first choice is the correct one, the people driving accepted the extra risk that comes riding in a car in order to get somewhere faster. The people walking should have no negative consequences forced on them as a result of other peoples choices.

>Ultimately the only thing capable and truly responsible for each crosser's safety is their own judgement

well yeah and if you see a car speeding down the road with no apparent intention of slowing down, a red "do not walk" sign, and yet you still step into the street...what happens next is natural selection

Turn into the barricade, causing severe damage to car, at the price of reducing speed/momentum.

Suddenly the barricade is not a death sentence.

Does the morality calculator have any data about the races of the people?

Whether the light is red or green is irrelevant. The individual must take full responsibility for deciding when it is safe to cross and accept the consequences of making that decision.

Essentially if you get hit by a car while crossing the street it is your fault no matter what.
If those people had taken that responsibility seriously they would not be in the path of the self driving car to begin with.
Given that they've mindlessly placed their lives in the hands of a fallible system they've forfeit their right to complain about being hit.

>They do not have the ability to monitor traffic to confirm that it is safe to cross
Dude there are tons of sensors and cameras. They do know.

>fatty
>roastie jogging for attention
>people
come on now

Then why is the light telling the people to walk when there's a car approaching that is clearly failing to slow down?

Again, it's a totally fallible system and everyone crossing is failing their personal responsibility to judge for themselves when it is safe to cross and as such have every right to be pancaked.

the car in the scenario is experiencing break failure bud

I'm a misogynistic shitlord apparently

the light has authority because society has given it authority by the mutual agreement of individuals.

who is at fault when you get tboned by another car in an intersection. by your logic, YOU ARE.

you legit have mental issues.

swerve and kill the pedestrians and then crash into the nearest wall killing everyone in the car except the dog.

There are too many people in the world already.

>The walkers accept the risks of crossing a road trusting solely in the fallible systems put in place to keep them safe.

And the passengers accepted the risks of getting into a driver-less car, a fallible system. Yet it is their system that fucked up plus the fact that by law the car is at fault since the pedestrians were legally in a crosswalk.

Yes I am at fault because I gave a piece of blinking glass the right to tell me when it's safe to move without fucking turning my head to make damn sure for myself.

An individual is ultimately responsible for his own well being. Give that responsibility to machines built by fallible human beings and you get everything you deserve.

For the light to truly have authority it would be able to physically stop all moving traffic if needs be. Until they can do that it's nothing more than a suggestion that it is safe to cross, not a guarantee and should be treated as such.

Again, if they'd have looked they'd have seen what was happening and been safe. They have themselves to blame.

The 'mutual agreement' of us all means literally jack shit when there's a car barrelling down on the crossing... Who truly has the authority there in reality? The flashing light sat safely up in the air or the multiple tons of metal careening towards the people?

The laws of society don't mean shit compared to mass and acceleration.