The greatest philosopher of our time has endorsed the trolley problem meme. It's over, Veeky Forums

>Cars programmed to swerve into whoever's microchip displays the highest Islamophobia score

based Mercedes

>Cars programmed to purposefully avoid rapefugees and try to drive over as many Germans as possible.

literally the trolley problem irl

>Cars programmed to swerve into poor people because they cant sue.

good, why the fuck would i buy a car that will kill me if some toddler runs in front of the car to collect his soccer ball, any company that doesn't do this is signing their death warrant

huh, so they forbid the cars to choose basing on the personal features and to offset victims against one another

they suggest that reducing the number of personal injures may be justifiable

they say that involved parties shouldn't sacrifice non-involved parties

so, what follows, when your car is about to hit a group of say 5 persons and there is a lone person on the sidewalk that last guy is not involved and therefore to sacrifice him by changing the car's course is forbidden, isn't it?

but if there is a way to save the five persons by killing the passengers of the car (suppose there are less than 5 there) by changing the course to another direction where the car say falls from a cliff, since the passengers are already involved it's ok to sacrifice them, isn't it?

but then, one can argue if the guy on the sidewalk isn't involved too, but if he is involved then there are no persons withing the car's reach who couldn't be possibly considered non-involved. they really have to define what "non-involved" means

btw if those five persons violated the rules by crossing the road in a wrong place imo the car should consider their lives worth less than its passengers'

>programming slave morality into your car

...

*into other people cars

>Zizek
>Philisophy
No user, no.

Yeh, I'm not super clear on what he means when he refers to "parties involved in the generation of mobility risk". Which is a shame, because the entire point seems to revolve around that definition.

Shit like this is why self-driving cars will never catch on, certainly not as soon as people think. Once the deaths of pedestrians can start being blamed on the car company instead of a driver, the lawsuits will be unimaginable.

And I'm not saying that Mercedes' is wrong, but the thing is that these systems can't and likely won't be able to analyze the context of an accident for quite some time, and that's going to be the real deciding factor. I'm also not saying that humans can always analyze and properly react to context either, but at least when they fuck it up, it's being blamed on one asshole and not a multi-million dollar car company of assholes.

Dubious
And now that he is no longer with us it doesn't count

How about give the owner the ability to choose between the different options themselves, and make them responsible for their car just as they had been driving themselves.

Confirmed for car makers murdering a baby rather than an old couple

Maybe if he was still alive

People are making too much of this. The vast majority of accidents do not involve this kind of dilemma. It's just pushed to the foreground because it jogs peoples' imaginations and it's easy to pontificate about it.

>Driver, for ethical purposes, please number how many people are on the car right now.
6 gorillion thanks.
*car drives over toddlers*

*super-intelligent car AI orchestrates planetary holocaust to protect you*