Posted on 06/24/2016 8:20:32 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Self-driving cars have a lot of learning to do...
And, if the situation arises, they’ll need to know whether it’s better to mow down a group of pedestrians or spare their lives by steering off the road, killing all passengers onboard.
... Once self-driving cars are logging serious miles, they’re sure to find themselves in situations where an accident is unavoidable. At that point, they’ll have to know how to pick the lesser of two evils.
The answer could determine whether self-driving cars become a novelty item for the adventurous few or gain widespread acceptance among the general public.
...
The easiest question was whether a self-driving car with a single passenger should crash itself into a wall to avoid hitting a group of 10 pedestrians. About three-quarters of respondents agreed that sacrificing one life to save many more was the moral thing to do.
After that, things started to get tricky. The fewer pedestrians there were to save, the weaker the consensus that the car should sacrifice its passenger. If crashing into a wall would save just one pedestrian, only 23% of those surveyed thought that’s what the car should do.
When the researchers asked people to imagine that they were riding in the car with their child or another relative, their willingness to swerve away from innocent pedestrians faltered. Still, between 54% and 66% of survey takers agreed that the car should do what it must to save as many lives as possible.
This pattern of responses revealed people’s strong underlying preference for a “utilitarian” set of rules designed to maximize lives saved and minimize deaths — with one big exception.
“People want to live in a world in which driverless cars minimize casualties, but they want their own car to protect them at all costs,” Rahwan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Ejection seats.
I don’t think your self-driving car will enter a ghetto. It’ll be on some no-go list that you note in the system as you purchase the car. It’ll be like driving south through Birmingham, Alabama....it’ll ask you if you want to refuel 40 miles before or 40 miles after....but it’ll tell you that getting off the interstate in Birmingham is not possible.
“Dave.....what are you doing, Dave?
You’ve entered us in a demolition derby, Dave.
Perhaps you should get out and make sure the hood is latched, Dave.
Daisy, Daisy......”
All this proves is Karen Kaplan is an idiot and the article is not really about self-driving cars.
[ “The easiest question was whether a self-driving car with a single passenger should crash itself into a wall to avoid hitting a group of 10 pedestrians.”
Are the ‘pedestrians’ holding ball bats, tire irons, machetes, concrete blocks, bicycle chains, etc.? ]
What will it do if it runs into a “Murder of Muslims” in the road....
I think “Murder of Muslims” is a like a group of crows, What do you call a group of Muslims, I think “Murder of Muslims” is the most accurate descriptor...
But liberal logic would tell you that since everyone
is going 30 mph. it wouldn’t make any difference since
there would be no velocity inequality.
Technology this advanced could map out any trip with preferences and advisory. People might want to go to a dangerous neighborhood for any number of reasons. If an emergency suggested a dangerous neighborhood stop, the car could ask the rider for permission, warning about the trade-offs. Maybe a little hatch would open, a la James Bond, to give the passenger a gun.
What are the pedestrians doing in the roadway in the first place?
I’m supposed to sacrifice my life because some idiots decided to jaywalk? Don’t think so...
Susan Calvin: What happened to you?
Detective Del Spooner: Headed back to the station. Normal day, normal life. The driver of a semi fell asleep at the wheel. Average guy, wife and kids, working a double. *Not* the devil. The car he hit, the driver’s name was Harold Lloyd. Like the film star, but no relation. He was killed instantly. But his twelve-year-old was sitting in the passenger’s seat. Never really met her. Can’t forget her face, though. Sarah.
[fingering the necklace]
Detective Del Spooner: This was hers. She wanted to be a dentist. What the hell kind of twelve-year-old wants to be a dentist? Yeah, um... the truck smashed our cars together and pushed us into the river. You know, metal gets pretty pliable at those speeds. She’s pinned, I’m pinned, the water’s coming in. I’m a cop, so I know everybody’s dead. Just a few minutes until we figure that out. NS4 was passing by and jumped in the river.
NS4 Robots: [from flashback] You are in danger!
Detective Del Spooner: [from flashback] Save her!
NS4 Robots: [from flashback] You are in danger!
Detective Del Spooner: [from flashback] Save her! Save the girl!
Detective Del Spooner: But it didn’t. Saved me.
Susan Calvin: The robot’s brain is a difference engine. It’s reading vital signs. It must have done...
Detective Del Spooner: It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45% chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11% chance. That was somebody’s baby. 11% is more than enough. A human being would’ve known that. Robots,
[indicating his heart]
Detective Del Spooner: nothing here, just lights and clockwork. Go ahead, you trust ‘em if you want to.
Give me a break. If they decided to flout the rules of the road and step into traffic, then they made that choice, not me.
In real life, we can drive competently enough that jaywalkers are almost never a serious issue. Being mobbed in the street is a different story, but you’re talking jaywalkers here.
What do you want to use that break to do? Show more callousness?
Excellent.
And just what is going to mean for all those podunk towns who set up their speed traps to fund their coffers?
I say no.
I don’t think that we write an ethical algorithm that can make snap decisions in a fraction of a second deciding life or death.
I certainly don’t think it would be ethical to do so.
That was one of the Isaac Asimov robots, wasn’t it. It wouldn’t LET you sacrifice.
Well, the way the question is posed you only have the option of driving through them or killing yourself. Obviously that is not a situation that describes some avoidable jaywalkers, but sounds more like people who decided to jump into the roadway in front of traffic on purpose.
If they want to suicide like that, it’s on them, not me.
Well we do have a lot of computer aided whatever whose function is important to safety.
Ultimately, though, these are just machines carrying out someone’s will. And always will be — this is why I scoff at the idea of a singularity of machine takeover, though I might not scoff at much at the idea of people choosing to WORSHIP machines. It’s wrong, but always possible.
It’s callous to say I wouldn’t kill myself to save a suicidal idiot? I’d say it’s common sense.
Someone who popped out on purpose would pose a different thing to react to than someone who blindly wandered out, but the question you should still ask is, what would you do if YOU drove the car.
If this is your attitude, that you aren’t at least going to slam the brakes hard to try to lessen the damage to the kamikaze pedestrian, then that speaks for itself.
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.