Posted on 11/26/2017 8:26:32 AM PST by markomalley
Self-driving cars may have to make the moral decision of who lives and who dies during a crash, according to a report.
“As you approach a rise in the road, heading south, a school bus appears, driving north, one driven by a human, and it veers sharply toward you. There is no time to stop safely, and no time for you to take control of the car,” USA Today explained. “Does the car: A. Swerve sharply into the trees, possibly killing you but possibly saving the bus and its occupants? B. Perform a sharp evasive maneuver around the bus and into the oncoming lane, possibly saving you, but sending the bus and its driver swerving into the trees, killing her and some of the children on board? C. Hit the bus, possibly killing you as well as the driver and kids on the bus?”
The moral dilemma has been heavily discussed with the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
According to USA Today, “Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, co-authored a study last year that found that while respondents generally agreed that a car should, in the case of an inevitable crash, kill the fewest number of people possible regardless of whether they were passengers or people outside of the car, they were less likely to buy any car ‘in which they and their family member would be sacrificed for the greater good.'”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
FRiend, I build things. I have machinery so accurate it’s controlled as munitions under federal law. Don’t pretend you’re lecturing some Luddite. I see the shortcomings every day, and I see that the situation is not improving, every day.
The outsourcing of technology and skills is not leading to a utopia.
I’m not pretending I’m lecturing a Luddite, I’m full on lecturing someone who either has no idea how 21st century life works or is pretending to not understand to defend a bad position they’ve copped.
Now you’re weaseling to a different position. Meanwhile our technology, which indeed governs every single aspect of your life, is getting MORE reliable not less.
Face it, you’re WRONG. The self driving car is coming, and it will be better at driving than us. Much like how the self managed electrical grid arrived decades ago and is much more reliable. This isn’t about outsourcing, or shortcomings, or any other buzzword you want to weasel to. This is about you landed here with one word, which was meaningless in the context, and keep trying to find some way to have meaning, and you don’t.
Your position is false, your logic is non-existent, you have been weighed and measured and found wanting. The only question now is are you man enough to admit it. My money is on no.
Well, we’ve established that you’re pretty passionate about this, haven’t we?
Entropy. As I said the first time.
We’ve established that you can’t admit you’re wrong, and that I really enjoy taunting people that can’t admit they’re wrong.
I’m disagreeing with you. I’m not going to “fight you” on the internet. You’re clearly distraught over this and frankly, making a fool of yourself.
Our opinions differ, and you have no proof; nor do I. Nevertheless, I stand by my points.
You’re wrong. I’m not distraught or any other emotion you want to assign. I’m pointing out that your arguments are false, they lack factual context and logical flow.
I have lots of proof. I’ve presented much of it to you. You then look away and pretend they don’t exist. You have no points to stand by, you are WRONG. And your inability to admit it shows your basic problem. You can’t learn if you can’t admit you’re wrong. That’s why you weaseled around from entropy to Chinese chips to Indian coders, to the space shuttle, to well posioning, to just plain pretending things have not been presented to you.
All you gotta do is admit you were wrong. Or just stop posting. All your weaseling does is show that you’re the fool.
“what if a person does not want to share that personal information?”
I know what you mean. We have a lot of folks around here who absolutely REFUSE to use their turn signals, too!
:-)
Izzat you, Daneel? Giskard sends his compliments.
Don’t let William Shatner near it...
Women and children first, at least if the women are hot.
>>>”The insurance industry is going to make it very expensive for a human driven car to be on the highway. “
I think it’s more likely the opposite effect will govern.
What car manufacturer’s lawyers will allow their company to be sued whenever its product has an accident? Remember, there are trial lawyers chomping at the bit to go after GM or Ford or Toyota..
Plaintiff’s lawyers will win this debate, the car will - at most - decrease acceleration and tell driver: “you may be veering out of your lane accidentally, I suggest you check and make sure it’s what you wish to do...”
What could possibly go wrong with letting Google or Microsoft or Apple drive our cars?
The same people in flyover country that elected Trump often live in rural areas with roads that confuse human drivers. GPS gets you lost and there’s no cellphone service.
I’d like to see a self-driving Uber car on a twisty narrow up an down dirt road with large potholes with n oncoming log truck. The deer alone will put bunches in the shop. Thieves will have a hay day with driverless semis. Disable the trailer brakes and help yourself.
There is no end to distracted, impaired and/or brainless behavior that with any luck robot cars won’t imitate
drivers who talk on their cellphone and don’t pay attention
drivers who text
drivers who facebook
tired drivers who fall asleep
ill drivers
drivers with impaired vision
drivers blinded by the sun or headlights
drunk drivers
medicated drivers
lost drivers looking at street signs
angry and aggressive drivers
speeders
slow drivers impeding normal traffic
Will they disappear with the advent of driverless cars?
True, I understand the need vs want principle and think nobody should be deciding for us what we need over what we want. For me, the amount of blind trust involved in letting a car do my driving isn’t sufficient yet to overcome my love of driving.
Well they won’t be driving, they will be riding.
So their lack of attention, good health, ability, sobriety or plain common sense won’t be inflicted on everyone around them. They can text, sleep, talk, drink or play with their cellphone all that they want.
But only within the parameters that have been programed into them.
Car, drive me to the ice cream parlor.
Ice Cream is bad for you, I will instead take you to Tofu World.
Or
Car, drive me to the Trump Rally.
Trump is not good for you, I will instead take you to a Sanders Rally.
Or
Car, drive me to Church.
Too much sitting is bad for you, why don't you walk instead.
OH, ok. Got it. Thanks.
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.