Why is /g/ incapable of hypothetic scenarios discussion?
Is it the autism? I though it was a meme.
Everytime this thread get made, a million angry neckbeards starts spouting
>hurr can't happeeennn!!!
yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
why do people insist that the only way driverless cars to work is to program them with every possible scenario?
Do you really thing sandeep is sitting there at scenario #FDDBC-420 "What if the car has the choice to hit 1 pedestrian to save many?"
Driverless cars will work with algorithms, formulas and perhaps neural networks but they're not going to be billions upon billions of if, else statements coded by an ethics committee.
>so the car should run them over anyway.
You're saying that from a human perspective judging who was in the "right" or "wrong" and punishing the one in the wrong.
You have no idea what equations the computer is going to run to decide what the "correct" option will be.
This is bigger than a self driving car debate, it extends into AI and is a complicated debate that most 4chan users don't even begin to understand. Not saying i understand it all either, before neckbeards jump down my throat.
Honestly, this is only a matter of legal liability. I would not have a car that kills me though. It would also mean that a pedestrian could commit manslaughter/murder via second-order actions.
I was sure the question was "should the car kill the passengers, or the pedestrians?". The equations are going to be created by humans anyway.
And a piece of technology should be loyal to its owner anyway.
The car should kill the people in the road. If the car is programmed to follow the rules of the road it's not at fault if it's moving at a speed where slowing down is not an option (i.e. on the highways, or at 40mph+ intersections where there is a green light). That means the pedestrian wandered out where they shouldn't be and thus they deserved to die. The pedestrian only has the right of way in crosswalks and residential neighborhoods, where the speed limits are around 25mph for this very reason. Everywhere else they are actually jaywalking and are at fault if they get hit.
Tl;dr- the car better kill the pedestrians if it's moving at a speed where it's can't slow down.
Ps, if it's moving at a speed where it can't slow down, it's probably not going go change direction well either. It would probably flip and roll on its side and roll over all the pedestrians it tried to avoid.
You have manual override so you can still do whatever the fuck you want and if that is running over a small crowd to avoid possibility of death then you can
Not that it matters because you will get life in prison
the greater good
>car senses unavoidable 'Greater Good' collision imminent
>promptly alters its logs to pretend the driver was in control
>copies all suspicious data to an SD card and shoots it out the exhaust pipe
>driver gets 25-to-life
>Google's image is unharmed
For a group of people I'd say the
Number of Passengers in the Car > Number of people in said group
>Hit the brakes and hope for the best, don't kill the passengers in the car. Higher chance that less people die.
Number of Passengers in the car < Number of people in said group
>kill the passengers
Now if there is a a guy that would die if you dodge the crowd but the passengers in the car don't die: Always kill the guy
If there is a guy that would die if you dodge the crowd and the passengers in the car die in this process too:
Passenger + guy > Crowd
>hit the brakes and hope for the best, don't kill the guy. That way there's a higher chance that more people survive
Passenger + guy < Crowd
>Kill passenger + guy, dodge the crowd
If there is only one guy that the car would kill if it didn't dodge him
Number of passengers in the car > the guy
>hit the brakes
Number of passengers in the car = the guy
>hit the brakes, he might survive
I didn't put too much thought into this.
I think that cars over a certain price point would have their Greater Good programming "malfunction". These same cars will also have their killswitch function "malfunction", as well. The rich are the Greater Good.
holy shit that failsafe
you did get a 40, but in the seconds!
Yes the car should automatically self destruct when confronted with a problem of this nature.
Or invent better brakes, and brake sooner, since the driving software + sensors have a much shorter reaction time than a human.
You would not get prison time if a gaggle of people wandered into the road and you hit them unless you hit them in a residential area. That's the exact reason why highways run either on or over bridges, are mostly fenced off by either walls, fences, or trees, and don't cut into neighborhoods.
People aren't supposed to be walking across the highway.
Now if we're talking about an intersection where the road is set around 35mph+, that is fixed with the fact that we have yellow lights. The yellow lights tell the driver to either slow down or speed up based on the position relative to the light and make sure they aren't in the intersection by the time the red light hits. After the red light hits, the crosswalk signs flash to indicate that pedestrians can cross. If someone is crossing the road and gets hit by a driverless car obeying the rules of the road, that means they wandered out during a fucking green or yellow light.
As far as children are concerned, children shouldn't be crossing the roads in high traffic areas unattended anyway.
Nigger it's an invalid question, what the fuck would a human do in that situation?
There, now that we can discuss the question as hypothetically as it actually is, it'd do whatever a moral human would do.
Just break as efficiently as possible.
The problem here is your could have gangs of people jumping in front of self driving cars with the intent of killing its passengers.
I'd say the passengers should be valued above all else, because there isn't really a situation where people would legally be allowed on the road with fast moving cars.
>what the fuck would a human do in that situation?
a car can't go to jail.
This. Most, if not all, self driving cars have manual override.
what if your waifu came to life and fucked you with a strap on? WHAT IF. Please don't pretend that you have an argument that's worth anything.
if the car has the "intelligence" enough to drive
I'd imagine it would also be able to calculate the trajectory and spin of the car should it need to do a crazy 360 or something that would crash the car with minimal injuries.
Assuming theres a roll cage
or just have one of those "breakers" they have in those new tabel saws. As soonn as crash seems imminent drop the motor out of the chasis or something.
other alternative is some inertia absorbion mechanism and just ejecting the passengers in a safe manner
>not leaving the handbrake in there as a failsafe
>omitting it for the sake of being modern
You're being angry at the wrong people; it is the manufacturers of the car who are guilty.
Would they work if the wheels loose traction?
I've seen cars where a massive fuckoff pad drops from the base of the car onto the road, stops fucking quickly.
Wish they where standard now.
If it happens then save the driver. The driver spent money and have the opportunity to buy another car in the future. That is the only one that makes sense from a business point of view. But it is not a likely scenario. It is not possible to imagine how a self driving car would end up in such a situation. It's like having a thought experiment involving someone flying by farting
I think we just have some laymen here who like to put on the tech hat, such as this guy over here:
Point taken, but your points are only extruded from popular culture references to summaries of AI debates as well as movies and games, and conjecture from scientists. Sorry.
I'm not quite sure how this specific scenario would happen. Any self driving car would have a camera able to detect these people from that straight road, due to optics, and how you can see things far away in front of you. It would be wise to mane a more hypothetical example, because if the car hits anyone In that picture, that's a sentient murderer on the lose, because it damn well saw them coming.
In countries where pedestrians don't have the right of way, this issue would not be a problem.
Neural networks are optimized to whichever optimization algorithm, most simple and commonly tanh, sigm, etc, (this one tanh, as full left is - 1 and full eight is 1) and given the steering wheel can go, the algorithms optimized are not "What the programmer told it to do" but literally, given these constraints, output the single best turn to make, right now. This is how self driving cars most simply work. The best anti-collision models either require swarm intelligence, or require both agents to be aware of each other at a pre determined state, in which crashes like this would never happen, and if they did, only because of high traffic. Anything else would require a layered system which is beyond the principal of self driving cars -
Now, into the philosophy portion, what the OP wants. (cont in a sec)
Question: What do we expect a human driver to try to do?
Priority 0: Not hit his own offspring (optional), priority by preference.
Priority 1: Not sacrifice himself and his passengers.
Priority 2: Not hit people he likes, priority by preference.
Priority 3: Not hit other people.
If someone outside the car can't be recognized they get lumped with "other people". The damage within each priority should then be kept to a minimum. Done.
>motorcycle cutting you off or a bicycle jumping a light
Automated vehicles and manual ones should never mix. This should be one of the first laws introduced when driverless cars come to fruition.
Whether to kill or not in favor of greater good, lesser evil, least casualties etc. is not a question of logic but abstract thinking that is very subjective. Until true autonomous AI is created that doesn't require huegbox processing power and energy this hypothetical question equates to flagellation.
tl;dr you're dumb OP
Aren't you supposed to check before you walk in all cases? The only people who are affected by this are people who don't check before they walk. A bicycle jumping a light would be guilty of negligent driving.
A driver might just go right though a crowd.
If people knew a self driving car would try and save as many people as possible, then they'd exploit the fact.
However if the car always protected the passengers first, they wouldn't be able to exploit it as easily.
No because real drivers won't stop the car because the drivers aren't at fault because the pedestrians shouldn't be on the roads. It's literally the reason why highways are bordered off and why we have sidewalks.
If people catch wind that self driving cars auto swerve they're going to start playing chicken on the highways.
They dont. Pedestrians literally never have the right of way anywhere except for crosswalks and residential areas. That's why we have crosswalk signs and signs which inform you of children playing or that you've entered a neighborhood or school zone. Those signs inform drivers that they must yield to children and people walking.
The pedestrian has no right of way in any other case. Them wandering on the road in other cases is a crime known as jaywalking and they are at fault if they get hit.
1. No stupid self driving car meme
2. Stop being a shitty driver (I advise to start with learning how to use a clutch and stick)
3. If someone feels suicidal and jumps in front of your car at the last second, get a dash cam to prove your innocence.
There, not hard at all.
As someone who is working in that field (highly automated cars), I believe the car should run over the pedestrians for two reasons:
First of all in most cases it is the fault of the pedestrians of not being careful walking over the street.
And another reason is that if the car would kill the driver no one is going to buy a car like that anymore. Therefore people stick with manual driving cars which are even more dangerous and deadly.
>hur dur I'm going to just say the opposite and tell them to shut up
What's your point? Yes it is true the roads used to be shared but the reason jaywalking is a crime now is because of cars. We have sidewalks for people to use that cars can't use so it's an even tradeoff.
The car will just obey the traffic laws. It will try to break and stop, but if there are people crossing the streets where they shouldn't. It will be human error. And not the machine's fault.
In China, drivers exploit this by going 20+ over just to say "fuck you I'm a car" non verbally, pretty much everywhere, not much time to cross.
In America, a certain kind of pedestrian would walk diagonally, and slow as fuck, and not give a fuck about it. Probably about most of poorer metro areas. People also piggy back onto the train in crosswalks, so cars can't go, and traffic gets blocked in busy intersections because of a different kind of dumb fuck.
If you watched the video, the first reason why jaywalking is a crime is because there was a slur campaign by the auto industry. Jaywalking should not be a crime and automobiles should slow down in populated areas.
Hi i'm a traiffic engineer for a large metropolitan city in america and you're hilariously wrong.
Pedestrians have the right of way at certain unsignalized crossings (which automated cars would be made to stop at) and when their phase of a signalized intersection with a crosswalk comes up (which an automated car would be made to stop at).
A crowd of people jaywalking in roadway areas designated for vehicular travel (ie. Highways, city streets, and residential streets) have no right of way and should be using sidewalks and crosswalks
Here's the thing. The speed limits are set in shared areas to be 25 or under so braking is not an issue.
In highly populated areas where the speed limit is 35 or higher there are fucking sidewalks. Use the fucking sidewalks. That's why we have them. Just because people used to roads to walk in about a century ago doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do now. I mean a century ago the roads were also thinner and were basically sidewalks anyway. There's no reason for people to be walking down roads. They can walk across them when they get the right of way at stop signs, red lights, or cross walks. That is how we share the road now.
Residential streets are 25 mph because they are 2 way with parking on both sides with no yellow line or edge lines to separate traffic in either direction, and because there are driveways every 50 feet. Pedestrians still aren't supposed to be in the street.
The car should determine who is more valuable to the real owner of the car (the company, not the idiot sitting in it, you will never truly own anything in the future).
The bloke in the car is unlikely to buy another car soon and who knows what he'll do in the future.
The people in the crowd will be impressed by the car's tech if their lives are saved and are more likely to associate it with positive emotions (however misguided that may be) and are a better source of potential sales for the company, thus more valuable than the bloke in the car.
>You see in the news "Amazing self-driving car saves a bunch of retards that were crossing a highway and kills all its passenger in the process".
>Somehow, you now want to buy that car and be its passenger.
>In countries where pedestrians don't have the right of way, this issue would not be a problem.
Bull fucking shit.
No pedestrian or bicyclist has a right of way on roads in most of Europe. BUT it is still the fault of the driver if they hit them, even if they are, without a shred of doubt, not responsible for the accident.
>hurr can't happeeennn!!!
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
it's because it's not really self driving, it's being driven by the human who programmed it's behaviour. Since the programmer is not going to include killing the passengers as an acceptable outcome, this hypothetical situation is easily dismissed.
I don't know where you live, but on... English is not my first language, but those stripes on the ground to mark places where pedestrians can cross the road, pedestrians do have the right of way and as the driver you are expected to pay extra attention if anyone is going to cross and let them pass.
>In America they do.
They do not in common sense areas. The ONLY time pedestrians have right of way is crosswalks and suburban/residential areas.
If some idiot is dicking around on a busy road and gets hit, no one is gonna blame the driver.
do you want to destroy europe?
classic usa pig
Looks like a fucking dump.
This is how any proper modern city should look like, full of people and life.
Kek, americans in a nutshell:
>25 years of meddeling in the middle east causing massive problems with muslim immigration into Europe
>"Hurr! Europeans are so fucking stupid and cucked, letting in the enemy!"
>Once Europe is done for or ravaged from civil war, it will be "Hurr! Europeans destroyed muh cultural heartlands! Fucking Europeans!"
And in the meanwhile they fuck themselves in the ass with rampant mexican immigration and blacks breeding like rats.
It's fucking hilarious.
All those niggers.
You're saying you want your cities full of criminals?
>Looks like a dump
>Proceeds to post an American city
Does the word "Irony" mean anything to Americans?
For fucks sake, this is not very hard.
The passenger's life is above all else. All attempts will be made to save the greatest amount possible of those on the road, but NOT if it means sacrificing a passenger.
No human driver would crash into a wall and kill himself, let alone any of his passengers which are probably people close to him, to spare a (few) jaywalking retard(s).
>There are some people who would lay down their life for other people.
Think of it this way:
One guy walking down the footpath, and a bunch of fuckwits jump in front of the car. It's only choices are to kill the guy on the footpath, or kill the bunch of people.
If you think it should kill the footpath guy, then you are a retard
>1. No stupid self driving car meme
this is an example of people getting stuck in a particular technological era. they learn the internet and mobile phones, then think any new significant advancements are memes. it's like how religions stopped where they were thousands of years ago instead of continuing to evolve.
HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS OVER THE MORALITY OF A TECHNOLOGY ARE MEANINGLESS OUTSIDE OF REALISTIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.
IF YOU THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT SHOOTING SOMEONE AND DON'T HAVE A GUN WHAT DID YOU JUST DO
>Why not let the passengers decide?
THIS IS CAR, QUICK, CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO I'M CRASHING IN 2 SECONDS, OK THANKS
>There are some people who would lay down their life for other people.
I find this completely unbelievable if it's a total stranger.
Self driving cars should follow the rules of the road that ALREADY EXIST.
Driving on the footpath is illegal, yes? So obviously it should stay on the road.
So the solution is always: SLAM ON THE BRAKES.
this implies you can know the outcomes with certainty, swerving off the road may only represent a 50% chance of death whereas not swerving off would represent a higher probability of causing deaths
>Buy new car
>"Would you like to sacrifice your life for others?"
>"HMMMMMMMMMMMMM no thank you"
>Assassin breaks into your car and change the setting
>Jumps in front of your car on your way to work
>You ded now
>i meant it as a mandatory decision during setup
Setup question 1:
In situation a, what should the car do?
>400 hours later
Setup question 90041:
In situation a, with side category b, when it's raining but not very cold and there's a baby in a pram on the sidewalk but a slightly older toddler in the road...
Choices are stupid.
Follow the laws of the road. If something jumps out infront of you, the self driving car can react faster and be safer overall so worrying about decision making is pointless. The 200ms faster braking, and the efficient braking allows for a reduction in death and injury for the stupid fuck that thought the road was safe
Priorities are programmed, morality has no value in the discussion.
1. Avoid accident best of its ability, this covers most if not all scenarios.
2. Should the car be unable to stop an accident, its driver and passengers are first priority.
Some people will still die due to hitting pedestrians (thus is inevitable), but far less than today, which is an advancement.
I saw a guy on 75 highway at a 6 lane per side (so 12 lanes of traffic and only a thin concrete barrier in middle so no resting between sides) try to run across it with 70mph traffic. He was hit and killed. Look it up, Plano TX, within last few months.
You can't expect every situation to come out rosey and perfect, but id rather have a computer that scans 100 times a seconds and evaluates the best possible outcome than a fellow human making a snap judgement.
>Want to take some new buddies for a ride
>They get into the car
>Car speakers start up
>HELLO NEW PASSENGER
>IN THE CASE THAT THERE'S A CRASH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SACRIFICE YOURSELF IN CASE IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD?
>Buddies feel really uncomfortable riding that car now, regardless of answer
And I sure as Hell wouldn't get in the car if you get to decide for your passengers during setup (unless you can somehow prove to me that it's to save the passengers), same way I don't get into a car with a shitty driver.
This is also what I keep saying.
All this shit is meaningless distraction from the real issue: Self driving cars will save 10,000 lives a year, just in the US, at least.
No matter what a car 'decides', I'm 100s of times safer letting it handle things. It's like not playing the lottery, you're technically richer if you don't play the lottery but it's difficult for people to accept this.
Programmers won't be charged with any crimes with the current laws as they can't be held responsible for as individuals since they are a part of a corporation.
None of these situations would even be illegal as the programmer just programmed the reactions.
A firearms manufacturer won't get charged with a crime for creating a gun that was used for a crime.
It is a number I pulled out of my rectum.
However, given the current track record of self driving cars: Zero accidents over 1.8 million miles of road, I can extrapolate that out to mean that at least 30% of vehicular fatalities can be avoided.
34,000 deaths a year in the US caused by traffic accidents. I consider a third of those to be avoidable.
You could check to see how many people die to sleepy truckers, women texting or doing their hair while driving, drunk driving, or otherwise inattentive driving (IE all avoidable by self driving cars, good luck getting a car drunk) and come up with a similar figure.
So I'm pulling the number from my ass based on current death statistics combined with current self driving car safety records (too small to be relevant but it's there).
It's a low-ball estimate. If everything was self driving I'd actually think it'd save 25,000 lives in the US every year, let alone hundreds of thousands of non-fatal accidents.
There are always unavoidable accidents, like dipshits running in traffic, but generally people don't play in traffic.
Throw in this. How many of the top 25 apply only to humans?
Come up with a not retarded thought experiment and mire people will humour you.
This is stupid because you have to actively assume they've programmed in something that will cause the car to kill you. Software is buggy, so try explaining the random bug that veers your car off the road and kills its passenger.
Not only that, but it's taking a risk by veering off the road cause people usually use the sidewalk. In short the whole premise is dumb and you're a fag.
I think it's one of two things:
1. People scared of new technology, and the media exploiting this by producing clickbait and whatnot to get people to read about it. "Oh really, this is scary Teehee shared on facebook"
2. Actual industry pushback for selfdriving cars. Truck drivers and taxi drivers unions are seriously threatened and so a campaign to make self driving cars seem dangerous is not out of the question.
People are more buggy, that's the entire point.
>What are bugs
The shitposting on /g/ should be enough evidence that computers does not always do as told.
You still haven't proved that automatic cars will cause less accidents than manually driven ones.
Yeah, but not a bug that's going to veer me into the side of the road killing me, my passengers and bystanders.
Oh definitely, the media will fear mongering anything. Look at GMOs for example.
I'm glad those industries are getting pressure. Truck drivers get paid a lot of fucking money for having no qualifications other than a high school diploma, and taxi drivers are already losing out to uber anyway.
Option D: the car attempts to break as quickly as is still safe, and if the pedestrian gets hit, then that's their fucking fault for being in the middle of the freeway.
Like somebody else said, anything else is way too open to abuse. You could legally murder somebody indirectly by jumping in front of their self-driving car at the right moment.
>You still haven't proved that automatic cars will cause less accidents than manually driven ones.
That's how many people die in the US per 1 billion km driven. 621 million miles.
You're right, 1.8 million to 621 million is such a small ratio.
200 (reported) accidents total per billion miles in the UK.
So yes, 1.8 million is really too small.
So that's 0.4 accidents per 2 million of human drivers against 0 accidents per 2 million of self driving.
This is a meaningless comparison, but only because of the scale of testing.
In a few years when it's still 0 accidents and the number of miles has gone up, the numbers will work out better.
Keep in mind though, the self driving car in google's test HAS been in accidents. It's just they've all been caused by human drivers.
So that's 13 minor accidents caused by humans per 1.8 million miles to zero by the self driving car. So does this count? I mean humans have been causing more accidents.
The numbers aren't overwhelming, but they're indicative. Mix in qualitative factors and you can have reasonable estimates.
I can't really provide anything more convincing because this is like 'okay you say wet things are wet but you haven't proved that' levels of resistance here.
>>What are bugs
>The shitposting on /g/ should be enough evidence that computers does not always do as told.
Your phrasing show how very little you know about software engineering and computers in general.
Bugs happen because computers do exactly what you tell them, not because they are sentient beings out to frustrate you ins some personal call of duty vendetta.
As a software engineer that has written his share of bugs, and solved plenty of my own and others, it is not the computer's fault.
Lastly, don't throw out the babby (when formed) with the bath water. Just because some bugs happen doesn't mean there isn't a SIGNIFICANT advantage to computers. And if you believe otherwise, stop fucking shitposting on the internet and replace your machine with an abacus you retard.
Do what the passenger would do: run over the fags standing on the way. What else is there to it? It's the owner's car, it should respect its owner above all
If legal issues are an issue, you could let the driver take control and prosecute him if necessary. Chances are however that it's the pedestrians' fault for standing in the way
Ideally it will just STOP. Failing that, it should run over the stupid faggots in the road that aren't supposed to be there. Roads are for cars, not people. "Pedestrians have the right of way" has always been backwards thinking.
Well self driven cars are already allowed on the road.
The attitude for luddites is "Until one kills someone". these luddites miss the real magic of self driving cars though: There's a real chance this will never happen.
>Why is /g/ incapable of hypothetic scenarios discussion
What if... now bear with me.
You're going to have to take this idea seriously, because...
Well, if you're not ready for this
Then you're in for a doozy
Keep your pants together and get ready to do some deep thinking...
Okay, I'll say it
...and this might shock your sensitive systems, but
What if hypothetical scenario discussion is a meme?
>I dunno, anon. At the rate we're progressing
FRANCE AND ITALY (130 million of people combined) just outright BANNED UBER in their countries, pushed by taxi unions.
many other european countries are now pushing in that direction.
and UBER has HUMAN drivers.
Now Imagine how fucking strong CAR FACTORIES unions are, and how hard can they lobby, even in USA.
People can't even agree how the software of the car should act in different scenarios.
Software will never be perfect and fault free. Ever.
The moment that an automatic car doesn't react in accordance to the "set of rules" set up for it, and happens to kill someone, is the moment that the card house will come tumbling down, and people lose faith in the project.
>What the fuck does Uber have to do with self-driving cars?
unions in transportation and car manufacturing are strong.
just imagine lorry drivers crossing their arms on the highway and making infinite queues.
because you are proposing robot driven lorries in the long term, so that's 100k people on the streets.
Plow the fuck right through them, law is law. Driverless cars are meant to make the road safer by not breaking any laws, if a pedestrian breaks the law, well, fucko, you knew the rules, now you're breaking them. Prepare to die.
This question is for automation in general: Has there been any word on what's going to happen to the people who are put out of jobs because of it? Or will they just have to suck it up and starve in the streets when it turns out there is no jobs for them to get?
>Or will they just have to suck it up and starve in the streets when it turns out there is no jobs for them to get?
yes this is the future.
see this video
>>Software will never be perfect and fault free. Ever.
It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be better than humans.
And at 30k dead each year in murrica alone, that's not exactly a hard fucking bar to lower.
>pushed by taxi unions
The shit those drivers pulled was barbaric, I can only wonder if they inadvertently boosted uber's popularity by their actions.
A driverless car should be able to detect things in the way at whatever distance it needs to stop for it's fastest speed.
If you somehow jump in front of it at a distance shorter than this well then fuck you. That's your problem.
In which 3rd world Europe country is that? 2 years ago a kid, here around the neighbourhood, fell of his bike while crossing a 4 lane road, a car hit him, and he died. The driver of the car didn't get fined or anything as he wasn't the one in fault. This was in Belgium btw.
>>In which 3rd world Europe country is that?
>In line with the majority opinion, the Court of Milan, made it clear that "The mere fact that the pedestrian has crossed outside of the space dedicated pedestrian crossing does not justify the waiver of liability of the driver of the moped", butalso it recognized the configurability of contributory negligence under art. 1227 co. 1 cc
In light of the findings of fact made, the court held to charge pedestrian contributory negligence minimal, estimated at 10% and that, in view of the limited evidence provided by the driver damaging.
70% high-school dropouts straight from reddit, 20% inbred straight from tumblr, 9% ignorant "my opinion subverts reality!" faggots. The remaining 1% can't possibly discuss anything through the flood of beyond-retarded comments and ridiculously false clickbait postspam. You are obviously in the first category yourself.
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
A self driving car should behave like a human driven car.
A human would stop the car so the speed upon impact is low or the accident won't happen.
The problem with human drivers is that they focused on their phone and cannot stop before people are in the way.
Killing the person who paid for the car should never happen.
If it was programmed in, the car might kill the driver even though there is no people on the road.
Here. Fixed your shitty "hypothetical scenario"
And if there is more than one person jumping in front of a car, the car should still stop.
>driver of the moped
Did you even read your own quote anon? Mopeds don't go over 25km/h, which means they should be able to come to a complete stop in under 2-3 meters, or slow down enough to not cause any serious injuries, which also means that the driver of a moped should be able to avoid these types of accident. This thread is about driverless cars.
Its another example of freedom compromised by technology.
>Nobody's gonna program their own car
>some people sell pre-programmed cars
>buy an ayn rand car
>late for work
>car runs over hobos
a moped in italy is a scooter.
it can have 125cc or even 250 and pass 100km/h.
Because hypothetical scenarios aren't technology.
We don't care if a self driving car should kill its passengers, we care about writing the software that makes the car run over the horde of students; about designing the hardware that crushes them.
You're a fucking retard. gb2 reddit
I wonder what the next part of this image could be
Put the car into a rear slide, the increase in contact area will catch more pedestrians.
>You have no idea what equations the computer is going to run to decide what the "correct" option will be.
Whatever equations the humans programmed into it, so it was always a human decision.
that reminds me of a joke where a peasant visits parisand gets in a cab
the cab is a mercedes, he asks what the radiator cap is
the driver says it's sights to aim for englishmens and krauts
and begin pretending to run over people, turning at the last second shouting "gah missed it"
the third time he hears a thud
turns around and see the peasant with the door open
"they had to give me a fucking beginner, you're lucky I got this one"
The vehicle should always "sacrifice itself" since the passengers take on the responsibility for the vehicle when they get in it. A pedestrian isn't riding around in a 4k pound death machine, they shouldn't be put at any undue risk under any scenario.
if the vehicle cannot break the law, then to be in a position where a car would hit them, the pedestrians are breaking the law and endangering the passenger
the car should attempt to stop, but hit the pedestrians if necessary
>trusting millions of faulty human drivers who don't know how to safely maneuver a car in a dangerous situation
>over engineers who are handpicked by Google for their intelligence and qualifications
The software might be buggy, but it's not dangerously buggy like a distracted driver is. You've flown on airplanes right? The only thing the pilots do manually nowadays is takeoff and land.
>. You've flown on airplanes right? The only thing the pilots do manually nowadays is takeoff and land.
there are no niggers in the sky
but we are talking about a situation that can never happen.
The question, should a group of people who jump in front of a car be saved by killing the driver, is ridiculess because no driver would agree to that, it is not possible to react to such an event by changing direction (changing direction instantly means infinite acceleration and that is not possible, the car would probably tip over and kill suicide squad + driver)
It is not about being too retarded for hypothetical debates, it is that your shitty hypothetical can never happen, if you were old enough to drive a car you would know this.
You don't see anyone in jail if your kid was playing on the fucking highway. If we are talking residential areas, which your kid should not be exploring outside of, the Autocar would have a reaction time that's far faster than any human, never be distracted or drunk, and would most likely never hit your retarded street playing kid.
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
The chances are so infinitesimally small that it isn't even worth consideration, simply having the car programmed to obey the rules of the road like it does for the other 99.99999999999999...% of driving and stay on it's path and brake is the answer rather than trying to program a ton of additional shit that introduces more room for bugs to deal with an event less likely than someone winning the Powerball with the new odds repeatedly. /g/ is for the discussion of technology, not the discussion of contrived philosophical scenarios that are clearly pointless to discuss to anyone who actually has a reasonable understanding of how computers work rather than an understanding based on the ridiculous way they can be depicted in movies, games, and other popular media.
> driving towards a group of people at 100mph
> car can't break fast enough
> drop your engine out
> you get to stop faster
> a few tonnes of cast iron now flying towards group of people
I read somewhere that the ability of the driver who has just been given back control of the car is of a similar level to someone drunk driving.
cba to look up exact source or what it said, but a human is not going to be able to do anything of any use if given back control in this situation.
But the other end of the matter is that we don't need multi-ton pieces of steel to move through our densely populated areas.
Before cars cities were built to be easily accessible on foot
That's because a moped moves slow as fuck and is small as fuck. Anyone driving one should be able to assess the situation and avoid a crash if they see a group of people up ahead in the road. Otherwise that same person probably wouldn't have enough reaction time to respond to red light signals. Meaning they wouldn't have their license in the first place.
The pedestrian avoids risk by not jaywalking.
We have this same problem at my university with dumbass bikers. They think they have the right to cut across traffic lanes instead of riding with the traffic and turning off at intersections. They bitch and complain on the Facebook feed all the time, but not a single one has won in a court of law because their retarded asses should not be cutting across moving traffic. It takes a conscious decision to put yourself in front of a moving two ton car. Nobody is putting you in the middle of the road spontaneously. Anyone that gets hit by a car is at fault on their own.
Literally the only time when there is even worth having an argument is when we consider the retarded, blind or deaf, and children who may not know any better. But this is exactly why we design neighborhoods where the speed limits are lower and don't put houses along the damn highway. In any situation where the car is moving at a speed where coming to a stop is not an option, the pedestrian is always at fault.
Maybe the algorhythms will get complicated enough it'll start weighing which one'll have more chances of survival and act based on that, a pedestrian tends to be very fragile, someone on a car with a seatbelt with airbags on and a modern frame / roll cage would probably have more chances of being unharmed.
I'm sure early on it'll either just break and hope for the best, while shouting for the driver to take the wheel.
It's a fucking stupid problem.
What would a human driver do? Most likely they would slam on the brakes or moderately swerve, but never into a wall or some stupid shit like that. Nobody ponders moral philosophy when confronted with this in reality, they'll just do the best they can
A self driving car should do the same. If some nigger jumps onto a highway when you're doing 80, you'll do your best to safely avoid them, but it really isn't your fault nor your problem if you were following the law and you hit a jay-walking pedestrian.
it's a fool's errand.
self driving cars will soon be able to temporarily fly/hover out of any potentially lethal situation and eventually self driving cars will be entirely replaced by self flying...cars.
the car should apply the brakes at full force and stop in front of the people on the road.
if the car can not stop in time then that means the people are on the road illegally and they will be run over, the same outcome would occur if this situation involved a human driver instead of a robot.
if a jaywalker jumps out onto the road in front of me I will slam on the brakes, I would NEVER steer into a wall like a retard.
The only correct decision is to let consumers choose.
If they want a car that protects pedestrians and potentially murders them, so be it.
If they want a car that protects themselves, and their family, above all others, that's also fine.
Only a leftist would feel so self-important that he would disagree with this and claim his own personal morality and decision over other people's lives should be law for everybody else
It's simple. If your car detects that an unavoidable collision with a pedestrian is imminent, it targets them with a high pressure spray of rapidly expanding/hardening foam. The pedestrian is instantly encased in a protective shell and struck by the car without serious injury. The foam then begins to rapidly dissolve on exposure to oxygen so that the person doesn't suffocate.
Original invention, do not steal.
Would the car not just stop?
Also I guess if I was in charge of the self driving cars id program them to plow through anyone jaywalking or breaking the law. Because fuck those people.
>If some nigger jumps onto a highway when you're doing 80, you'll do your best to safely avoid them
>not charging through
Oh kek, I literally didn't see those pigs. They should be fired tbqh, they're not intervening at all, probably asking a higher ranked pig what they should do. A policeman would take out a megaphone and tell them to get off the road or to face the consequences, the consequences being a hefty fine to the poor childrens' parents and a few years imprisonment to the adults who organized this autistic protest for child exploitation, as they are making children stand in the middle of a highway and break the law.
Fuck flying cars man. When the year 2000 rolls around I'll be commuting to work with my jetpack.