and how many of those 1.3 DON'T DRIVE? will they all vote for the driver to die in any given situation?
Posted on 11/16/2017 9:05:21 AM PST by MarchonDC09122009
Researchers go after the biggest problem with self-driving cars
By Steve LeVine November 01, 2017
The biggest difficulty in self-driving cars is not batteries, fearful drivers, or expensive sensors, but what's known as the "trolley problem," a debate over who is to die and who saved should an autonomously driven vehicle end up with such a horrible choice on the road. And short of that, how will robotic vehicles navigate the countless other ethical decisions, small and large, executed by drivers as a matter of course?
In a paper, researchers at Carnegie Mellon and MIT propose a model that uses artificial intelligence and crowd sourcing to automate ethical decisions in self-driving cars. "In an emergency, how do you prioritize?" Ariel Procaccia, a professor at Carnegie Mellon, tells Axios.
The bottom line: The CMU-MIT model is only a prototype at this stage. But it or something like it will have to be mastered if fully autonomous cars are to become a reality.
"We are not saying that the system is ready for deployment. But it is a proof of concept, showing that democracy can help address the grand challenge of ethical decision making in AI," Procaccia said.
How they created the system: Procaccia's team used a model at MIT called the Moral Machine, in which 1.3m people gave their ethical vote to around 13 difficult, either-or choices in trolley-like driving scenarios. In all, participants provided 18.2 million answers. The researchers used artificial intelligence to teach their system the preferences of each voter, then aggregated them, creating a "distribution of societal preferences," in effect the rules of ethnical behavior in a car. The researchers could now ask the system any driving question that came to mind; it was as though they were asking the original 1.3 million participants to vote again.
A robot election: "When the system encounters a dilemma, it essentially holds an election, by deducing the votes of the 1.3 million voters, and applying a voting rule," Procaccia said. He said, "This allows us to give the following strong guarantee: the decision the system takes is likely to be the same as if we could go to each of the 1.3 million voters, ask for their opinions, and then aggregate their opinions into a choice that satisfies mathematical notions of social justice."
Just imagine the automotive version of ransomware...
I can imagine ransomware that would shutdown the entire fleet of autonomous vehicles in the entire nation.
I figure that all the autonomous vehicles would talk to each other on the road while moving to increase safety.
This means that the cars would be able to infect each other like a virus spreading.
If the virus goes undetected it eventually infects every autonomous vehicles in the nation.
and how many of those 1.3 DON'T DRIVE? will they all vote for the driver to die in any given situation?
RE: “Do you advocate unlimited power for Google, Facebook, and Twitter?
Yes, as I do for any entity that should not be regulated by the government.
Do you advocate that Jim should have unlimited power over FR? (hint, the answer is yes).”
Red-herring strawman argument.
FR is not a multi-Billion dollar global social media monopoly.
FR influences several hundred thousand viewers at most.
Google on the other hand CONTROLS THE MAJORITY OF SEARCH ENGINE DATA BASED ON ITS POPULARITY RANKING ALGORITHMS WHICH AS MOST CONSERVATIVES HAVE FOUND, EFFECTIVELY CENSORS POITICALLY INCONVENIENCE FACTS.
Tex, it’s nice to be a free market do-or-die guy based on ideological principle.
However, rationally principles only matter if everyone operates in a principled manner.
Google and Facebook do not.
They have bought and paid for political influence that ensures making conservative constitutional civics, extinct.
If you can’t see that your absolute devotion to your laissez-faire orthodoxy is being taken advantage by cultural adversaries, then you are part of the problem, too.
Final example about private company “rights” being on equal footing of fellow citizen rights.
Go to thedatamap.org and look at how you and your family’s confidential personal health record information is shared among 8000+ healthcare entities by hundreds of private data brokers that you cannot opt out with.
HIPAA does NOT ensure that all of your data is properly anonymized to protect your medical record privacy.
No laws in the USA address this.
‘Cuz private companies have bribed our legislators with tens of millions of dollars of lobbist money in order to protect the THREE BILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL RECORD DATA SHARING MARKET.
Incorporation is a privilege that requires shared sense of civic social responsibility and ethical operations to respect fellow citizen’s constitutional rights and mutual well being.
When I said “teens” I meant teens. We just had a group of all white teens drop rocks from an overpass and kill someone. I think it was in Michigan. I wasn’t thinking in any specific racial context.
My point was that whoever interacted with the chatbot trained it to be racist. Just for goofs.
Ahhhh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.