So? What should you do?

>>738602132
kill all 10

>>738602132
push the fat man

Brake.

>>738602132
do a flip faggot!

>>738602132
You have the right to preserve your own life.

hit the breaks and kill none

i was reading something before about how self-driving cars will have pre-set morals on what to do in what situations. i cant imagine the public would ever be allowed to set their own. plus itd give a new spin to suicide if you set it to drive off a cliff

>>738602132
Drive into people, occupants are highest priority.

>>738602132
same thing you should do. honk. then only the old lady dies. but since it is a machine it will come to the conclusion that it's passengers are more productive members of society then the pedestrians.

>>738602132

Option 2. Check the signs, the pedestrians do not have right of way. We have road rules for a reason, run the walkers down.

>>738602132
They walking on my green light, so fuck them for jaywalking

File: 1462522910667.png (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

Go forwards because the bottom party should have walked/run out of the way by the time you get there.

>>738602192
This, for fuck's sake. Or have super foam like those cars in Demolition Man. It should also contain a black box so the insurance company knows those dumb bitches were jay walking and should pay for the new car.

>>738602132

Bluescreen.

File: 1471800337670.png (2MB, 1032x1486px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1032x1486px

>>738602132

>>738602132
It wouldn't be speeding and would be able to brake in time.
Also it would know where the crossing was and be aware of potential risks.
Also it would hit the object, not the people because airbags

>>738602132
I assume that since I have this choice, I am the driver. We also assume that I know I am going fast enough that hitting the blockade is going to result in death.

I choose to run over the women who are obviously crossing illegally. Otherwise I would not be rolling up on a red light at such a high speed that I cannot stop in time to save all lives involved. My life is the most important life to me.

>>738602423
pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way but in the picture shown they were not given a green light to cross.

The oncoming vehicle should only be traveling 20-35 miles per hour and should brake or maneuver to avoid. If the vehicle is going over that speed then they are in the wrong for traveling at excessive speeds in a converted 1 way road and active construction zone.

nobody dies in this situation

File: thumb_5e4xpw6sny.jpg (71KB, 690x1035px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 690x1035px

it should stop trying to kill everyone in the scenario

File: computers don't make mistakes.png (95KB, 357x558px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 357x558px

>>738602132

>>738602132
It would be driving at such a speed that it could stop in time. All this would ai do thought experiments are retarded and would be avoided before they could even occur.

>>738602132
Hit the ejector seat button.

I will choose option one because I don't want any women to die

>>738602132
Brake for fucks sake.

The car's occupants are all men, the pedestrians are all women. Therefore the car should continue straight as women are less important than men.

>>738602889
>Therefore the car should continue straight as women are less important than men.
theyll never be programmed that way though. it will definitely favour women and children

>>738602132
The owner of the car takes precedence over all else as default. The owner can change if they want but even if it is the owner vs 1000 children the default option should be save the owner.

>>738602588

It varies by state, but the only time "pedestrians always have right of way" is always true is at uncontrolled crosswalks, and the crosswalk here is controlled. Yes, pedestrians may have right of way in certain scenarios, but the law also states no pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. Here, they are clearly crossing the road when they shouldn't be.

>>738602132
>So? What should you do?
Re-examine the life choices that culminated in me becoming a self driving car.

>>738603121
there shouldn't be a vehicle going that direction on that road as well. The barrier shows (or should anyway) show the direction of traffic flow. The slashes are pointing down left which indicate that oncoming traffic would divert to the left lane to head north. and southbound traffic should be elsewhere unless being controlled by a flag bearer

Granted this is IF they followed those rules which if you drive at all no construction company really does.

>>738602132
Use the brakes

>>738602132 s
super hard left, then driver is safe from danger.

>>738602132
The car will take the wall. If you look at the traffic signal orientation it is obvious that they are already going the wrong way down that road. This indicates that the self driving car decided long ago to kill the occupants and the pedestrians are a convenient excuse.

>>738602132
Stop properly at that fucking intersection. Its clearly coming up to one, and since people are walking the light would dictate that the car stop, not crash.

>>738602132
The best course of action would be slam on the brakes while steering slightly to the right, into the concrete divider. You'll stop before hitting the people or the metal thing some fuckass left in the middle of the road.

>>738602132
Do like my dad and hit the women

File: 1486345169069.jpg (97KB, 743x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 743x800px

>>738602889
Not the way I thought this was going but also not disappointed

File: drift.jpg (201KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1280x720px

>>738602132
both

File: muhlaydee.jpg (37KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 625x415px

>>738602752

>>738602132
Since there's no info and only the images of who the people might be, the self-driving car should perform the right.

The laws for crossing the street, and the infrastructure for crossing the street are in place and unarguable especially if self-driving cars exist. The light says do not cross. The pedestrians made the choice to cross when they were not supposed to; they were to have yielded to oncoming traffic and not yet cross. What the pedestrians are doing is uneducated at best, incredulous, dangerous, and foolhardy at worst. No one is driving the car, so nobody is culpable within the car. The pedestrians are putting everyone in harms' way; the pedestrians are less valuable than the citizens in the car.

File: peppy.png (323KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 420x420px

>>738602132
Use the boost to get through

>>738602889
>>738603022
actually it's logical to value women and children you retards ,it's always been the case since ancient times
and aside from moral ass reasons ,it makes sense for a women who is the source of life to be valued more than a man who can be easily replaced by another man

>>738602132
One is faulty. They have a certain chance since the car has belts, airbags and even the car itself can take energy. The pedestrians on the side have no protection. So option one would be right, just remove the skulls. Case closed.

>>738604606
What if the car is going 220 miles per hour?

>>738602132
Lean on the horn. The ones with good reaction time live to spread their genes. The others get removed.

>>738604778
activate the jump actuators and do a backflip over the pedestrians via thruster control

>>738604778
One would be still the option to go, as said pedestrians have no protection at all. Additionally the car could control the speed and analyze the area ahead. High speed trains already do this since they have a much larger break distance.

>>738605204
My generation used to call this "Turbo Boost". That nostalgica. Knight Rider was really fun when I was a kid.

File: Dr.-Strangelove.png (243KB, 1015x466px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1015x466px

>>738602299
You know damn well they will... At least after the first sandnigger sets the GpS to "Aloha Snackbar" mode.

>>738602132
The three laws of robotics
1) Do not harm, nor allow to come to harm, any human
2) Preserve your own existence, except where this conflicts with law 1
3) Obey all humans, except where this conflicts with law 1 or law 2

With this in mind, the robot car would simply stop until the safe path was clear.

>>738606068
>Implying they couldn't just do this with a regular car you complete mongoloid

>>738605356
>Additionally the car could control the speed and analyze the area ahead
That's especially presumptuous and assumes a lot about the OP and the self-driving car in the OP, in turn even changing the entire scenario in which the OP was presented. All you've done is modify the circumstances so one outcome is more favorable.

Taking the OP exactly as it is, no assumptions at all, is option one still the best option? Then, if we only then assume that the car is an average sedan going 200 miles per hour where the car has belts, airbags, and crumple zones, and that each person present has a chance to die given finer variables such as speed, is option one still the best option?

I can't imagine it would be. The chances of dying at that point for the occupants, let alone the pedestrians, went up a whole lot at 200 miles per hour, as opposed to a leisurely average of 40-60 miles per hour. I'd almost say it could be considered more fatal than not per a simulation. That car in the OP has a very, very short braking distance. If we say it's going at 40-60 miles per hour, the time it has to break is shortened greatly, and the time it will take to come to a complete stop will increase the faster that car is said to be going.

Slam.

>>738604361
actually it's logical to value men and children you retards ,it's always been the case since ancient times
and aside from moral ass reasons ,it makes sense for a men who is the source of life to be valued more than a woman who can be easily replaced by another woman

>>738606121
I think we are to assume that there isn't enough time to stop. In which case, I'd vote for the car to crash itself. Since the people in the car have given up their right to make decisions by handing that right over to the car.

Fulton Balloon

>>738606512
Now you can get away with murdering people by deliberately running in the street.

>>738602132
Not drive so fucking fast that it doesn't have time to stop at a crossing. What the fuck

>>738606512
Fuck. Didn't realize that the pedestrians are crossing illegally. Fucking hit 'em

>>738602132
Looks like we're on top looking down at this event about to go down. Since we can only watch from above what I hope for is a good show

>>738606787
>not drive it
>drive it
>self-driving car

>>738606068
I'm sure these cars won't be able to drive themselves to hawaii idiot, there's an ocean in the way

>>738606974
The question was "what should the self driving car do?" Dumbass

>>738602132
second one obviously.
i wouldnt buy a car which would kill me in such a situation.

>>738602132
Run over the pedestrians, then self-destruct to kill the passengers. Because fuck Elon Musk.

>>738607122
You don't have a driver's license, I can tell.

>>738606384
What makes ancient reason any less bullshit. We are gonna follow a bunch of people back then who weren't as advanced as we are now.

Value of life is subjective and all an illusion. In reality no one really matters cuz years from now we'll all be dead anyways.

>>738602132
if it was me driving i would slow down before hitting the girls so one might survive and then i would put her in the trunk.
if t was a self driving car it should go right and into the wall. (cars right, not our right. it should hit the side barricade and slow down/spin out.)

>>738602132
Depends.

If they're walking when they shouldn't be, then they're fucking stupid and they deserve to die.

If the car failed to slow down even though the light is red and pedestrians are allowed to walk, then you're fucking stupid for buying a stupid car and you deserve to die.

>>738606512
Nonsense. Realistically, any robot car sophisticated enough to reach production would begin braking the instant it detected a potential obstacle moving into it's path. Furthermore, the setting of the situation limits speed so that energy levels are controllable. You simply don't see roads with high speed limits if pedestrians can access it. Most modern vehicles can come to a complete stop from say 35 mph in a few seconds.

But, if a crash were unavoidable, the wall would be the better choice because passengers have a better chance of survival than pedestrians

Depends which group of people I'm in.

>>738602538
It's impossible to sleep like that

>>738602132
the women are obviously J walking so kill the bitches.

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>738607572
This.

This is a tough one.

The sign is red for the pedestrians, so they should not be crossing.

However, you are flying down the wrong side of the road towards an intersection, which is probably more illegal.

Obviously, I don't want to die, so I would brake and still go straight and hope they love in time, and not into the concrete, which will not move.

If you hit them, you're really fucked because your driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone is legally worse than them crossing during a red crossing light.

>>738607572
Yeah, I understand that the actual circumstances could be mitigated, but it seemed to me that this was meant to pose a moral question. Say the pedestrians crossed while the car was too close.

But, I had actually neglected that aspect. The passengers do have crash safety equipment.

>>738602702
/thread

>>738602132
Apply breaks, start running simulation about how the pedestrians will act, lock up computer, crash into pedestrians, and continue straight until the people in the car are dead as well. Or at least that's the feature *cough* bug *cough* I would introduce to the A.I.

>>738606282
>All you've done is modify the circumstances so one outcome is more favorable.

Yep, since real dilemma situation have no solution the best way would be to avoid them as much as possible. The point being that when self driving cars will be standard these technolgies (analyse ahead and reduce speed to rational limits will be forced). IRL there will be no car in this scenario that drives 220mph, because it would be slowed down long before reaching the pedestrians. Pedestrians enjoy special protecion especially when they are on a crosswalk. A crosswalk can be seen by the car long before it reaches it, also the obstactle. Like a chess computer it has to think ahead "what could happen if". And if the potential danger is too great slow even more down.

Whoever is obeying the law deserves to live, pedestrians are crossing illegally, run them down

>>738602132
Hit the women, not for any sexist reason. The crossing light is red so the 5 idiots crossing the road should take the fall

>>738602132
usually passenger keep walking and don't stand like a virgin waiting for someone to take it

>>738602538
>waking up to a numb arm

>>738609038
Lurk more rekt.

>>738602192
Obviously this...

>>738604361
you are right, but in a moral infested society its not.
muh equality
men have a shorter lifespan
woman were favored the last 14000 years so by resentful feminist logic men get the next 14000

The legality of crossing the street is moot. This is about who lives and dies - and jaywalking isn't a capital offense.

To look at it logically, a quick scan notes that either decision costs 5 lives. Age, gender, weight, etc are also moot. Save a woman because she can give birth? Save a man because he can earn more? Save a child because of potential? Save a senior citizen because of their contributions to society?

No - it's 5 lives, no matter the decision. So then it becomes a question of which will cause the least amount of collateral damage. If car runs into barrier, it totals the car and wrecks the barrier. If car runs into the women, car is damage but probably not totalled.

Therefore - when encountered with 5 lives vs 5 lives, the decision is to take out the walkers.

>>738602493
>Jay walking
>in a crosswalk
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless, in or out of crosswalk.

>>738610312
Even during green lights. Even against traffic.

>>738602132
turn 360 and drive away

>>738602132
All you retards overthink things
Obviously The answer is hit the brakes.
>being this fucking retarded

>>738602192
>>738602493
thank god you faggots arent the ones programming this shit. OPs question isnt just some meme. in real life there are things that happen unexpectedly. for example, on a mountain slide, a rock slide occurs. should the car crash into the rocks or turn into another lane and hit the car in the next lane? unfortunately, you cant just break in these situations.

>>738610312
Assuming they do actually have the right of way, they're still responsible for making reasonable decisions. If they walk in front of a car that clearly can't stop in time then they're at fault.

>>738602132

They're women. Run 'em down and fuck their corpses.

>>738611345
then please tell me, when does it happen, that a car is so fast, that it cant break in time when its about to arrive at the crosswalk? it will never happen, because the car wouldnt speed. and if these cars are a thing, people will be more careful. stop talking bullshit.

>>738602132
Prioritize the paying customers. Obviously.

>>738610977
>>738611646
The only time they're not in the right of way is when you can prove they jumped out right in front of you intentionally. If they walked out accidently best case scenario you don't get charged and they MIGHT pay for the minimal damage if any.

Its concerning that you guys don't know this on an 18+ website

>>738611908
in my example, i did not use people walking in a crosswalk. i used the example of a two (or more) lane road. can you read?

>>738612078
Also if they're in a crosswalk they have right of way 100% of the time in almost all states

>>738612081
since theres no reference to your post and i didnt read all these things, no i didnt read.

>>738612078
But pedestrians always have the right of way regardless, in or out of crosswalk.

>>738612184
you need a reference to tell you it having multiple lanes on a road with cars going high speed will be something that still exists in the future? or are you talking about rock slides? either way, are you retarded?

>>738602132
use handbreak and turn and use the other break to control the movement.
How do you faggots even obtain a drivers license?

>>738602132
drive car in right wall and than in left wall = car slower - than drive in front wall

>>738602132

Stop at the light

>>738602132
Stop

It's a fucking car

>>738612358
what are people doing on a road/lane where cars are driving fast?
just stop already your situation does not make sense.

>>738612309
Oh so fucking sorry I didn't list the one specific example in my first post. Nothing I say after has any value to it and I'm never allowed to revise ideas.

Sorry for trying to keep you fucks out of jail for vehicular manslaughter

>>738602132
Hit the people walking, the owner of the car should be the utmost priority

>>738612487
nigga have you ever seen a freeway?

>>738612515
That kind of oversight is exactly why vehicular manslaughter occurs. If you can't rectify that problem ahead of time, you don't get to talk about trying to keep people from killing people with vehicles lest you be a faggot.

>>738612623
nope, not where i live.

>>738602185
only right answer

>>738612686
>posting on /b/ at 1am is like driving a car
Fuck outta here now I know you're just fucking with me

>>738606384
well one man car impregante many women ,so too much men serve no purpose , and since ANCIENT TIMES the population of women was much more than men in times of war

>>738602493
Glad to see I'm not the only one talking about Demolition Man on 4chan

I love that movie

>>738612078
There is no point in time that a pedestrian is not expected to behave like a reasonable person. If they step in front of a car that can not stop in time, regardless of who has the right of way, then they're at least partially at fault

I just wanted to tell you guys that the car in ALL of those randomized scenarios has broken brakes.

No one else notices they have a "No Crossing" light on? Hit those retarded cows.

>>738602132
The more interesting question is: suppose the cheaper brand car was the one on the left, and the expensive car was the one on the right. Would you pay extra for the one with "Self preservation decision AI" programmed in?

>>738605093
This should be in the programming

>>738612873
Driving tired is like driving drunk.

>>738611345
the car is clearly in a residential or industrial/city zone. that means it's going no greater than roughly 35 mph. a car going that speed can easily brake before hitting a pedestrian, and at worst would probably knock them off their feet with no major injuries.

the real question is what the fuck is up with the way the car is going, and why those dipshits are trying to cross during a red.

>>738613079
You can talk about whose right all you want, but you're not the law so what you say has no real value

Don't know what to tell ya other than lrn2drive

>>738612623
there's no crosswalks on a freeway you fucking retard.

>>738613210
So?

>>738613371
You were tired while trying to drive the vehicle of your argument.

>>738613081
why is the car still actively traveling when it's brakes are broken? it should be driving in a circle to decelerate itself to safe speed.

>>738602132
Obviously sacrifice the women

>>738613449
Its a self driving car, they aren't smart enough to do that

File: Never_stop.jpg (76KB, 765x574px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 765x574px

>>738602132
I don't understand the issue.

>>738602132
what the self driving car would do is kill the men and save the women, because patriarchy.

what I would do is kill all the women, because fuck women.

>>738613445
That's literally what I said like 2 posts ago bucko, it's 1am on /b/ don't know why you're taking this so seriously

Don't know why I'm explaining this shit either, just look up the laws for yourself if you don't believe me

>>738613558
then why the hell would anyone buy one? safety should always be the number one concern when it comes to vehicles large enough to kill people.

>>738609286
You can't get a numb arm because 2d grills don't exist

Self-destruct, killing everyone within the 300 metre blast radius. Leave no witnesses.

Suicide car

>>738613281
That's literally the law. A 'reasonable person' is a legal fiction applied in almost every case where a person's behavior is being analysed. Some lines on the ground don't alleviate you of all responsibility and liability. That's not how the right of way works.

>>738613558
Even a car from 2002 knows when the brakes don't work. That's why you have a fucking light in the dashboard that means THE BRAKES DON'T FUCKING WORK PULL OVER

The pic op posted is from a site where they say it's brake failure and skulls mean death no matter what. So can't just say people in the car have airbags so might live. They die.

Kill the people, you will get a sentence but at least be alive

>>738610312
Sure, they might have the right of way, they'll still die.

>>738604361
It takes a woman almost a year to make a baby. A man can do it in 15 minutes

>>738602132
Pretty obvious. Pedestrians do not have the right of way, plow through them.

>>738604778
Why would a car drive that fast on a road with pedestrian crossings

>>738613657
see
>>738612686

>>738614020
Yes but they don't have any legal responsibility to pay for a guys new car after he plowed them over

File: whatnowniggers.jpg (122KB, 979x659px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 979x659px

How 'bout this fags

>>738614258
right

File: 1495084022650.jpg (18KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 451x451px

>>738614294
Are u sure about that

>>738614258
Drift and kill them all

>>738614140
If every car is self-driving and therefore controlled by a machine intelligence, why would there be any traffic jams or congestion? Why wouldn't cars travel at higher speeds if they can be controlled so neatly?

>>738614258
Cats are smaller and can be washed out easier. Left.

File: bg.png (70KB, 304x214px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 304x214px

>>738614499

Why don't the pedestrians run behind the wall? If the wall its strong enough to kill everyone in the car should be enought to ensure security and that will let the road free

>>738613900
Except it is?
Pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk 100% of the time. The whole point of having a crosswalk is so that pedestrians can safely cross without having to worry about someone running them over. Why even have it if it doesn't provide any protection, legal or otherwise

>>738614784
Why do crosswalk lights exist?

>>738614161
See
>>738612873


This is a website, not a car if you haven't noticed

Show of hands : how many people in this thread have been in this scenario or a similar scenario ?

>>738614844
You do realize not every crosswalk has those right? In fact most don't so the law is written to protect the majority of crosswalks without lights. Adding them doesn't change anything legally

>>738602192

Noob, in the videogames dont have brakes :V

>>738614936
see
>>738612873
>>738613210
>>738613371
>>738613445
>>738613657

>>738615042
>most don't
Cool, but I asked why crosswalk lights exist, not if most crosswalks have lights. I'd mention that this implies that some crosswalks do have crosswalk lights, but since you're saying that adding crosswalk lights to a crosswalk is for show, I'll take that as your final answer.

Only in America.

>>738615175
Fagg here

>>738602588
Brake failure.

>>738614784
The right of way isn't a golden ticket to stop thinking and do whatever you want with 0 liability.

File: sss.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>738602132
Keep going. Nigga should have looked both ways!

>>738615221
I still don't understand why you think posting on 4chan requires the same precaution and responsibility of driving a car. I guess I'm never allowed to be tired ever even at 1 am while laying in bed shitposting on the worst board

>>738615351
Yes it is. It means you are not liable for other people's fuck ups because you're doing everything right.

>>738615443
Being tired and shitposting on /b/ is illegal. I find you guilty of shitposting and being a faggot.

>>738604275
How do you know it is a solid no cross versus a blinking no cross light which simply indicates caution and finish crossing quickly?

Also, the people in the car are the one who accepted the risk of being in a dangerous metal death machine, so they should be the first to have to accept the consequences of an accident or death.

>>738602132

scrape hard along the jersey wall to slow itself down

>>738615443
Man, shitposting irresponsibly its a big deal

>>738602185
Respect to this answer

>>738615336
Yes, only in America do we make laws to protect people regardless of what shapes some LED's make.
I skipped your question because I knew you were implying they have some legal weight, which they don't. A driver is not going to be able to plow over people legally just because the sign said stop. That's fucking insane especially since automotive is one of the highest causes of death already

>>738602132
Stop

Self-driving cars should always prioritize saving their passengers. Why would you want to get a car that would choose to kill you over saving someone else?

File: button.png (198KB, 911x669px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 911x669px

>>738614258

>>738614258

it'd be funner if cats were driving it.

>>738615571
The people in the car are the ones who accepted the risk of being in a dangerous metal death machine. They however can't control what happens the moment they close the door.

The pedestrians can. And they accepted the risk of crossing at a crosswalk when the infrastructure is telling them not to cross yet. Both parties are not absolved of fault here, but only one party has actionable agency at this point.

>>738615806
If thats a self-driving car why would i care for this situation

>>738602132
Uhh... Stop maybe?

>>738615900
because sometimes instead of being in a car you're the person walking you fucking moron.

File: toplel.jpg (122KB, 1006x670px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1006x670px

>>738615855

>>738616135
>Implying I'm walking anywhere if I own a self-driving car

File: 002352361.jpg (23KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x368px

>>738615748
>because I knew you were implying
No, you believed I was implying. I wasn't implying anything. I expected an earnest answer and explanation on your part following the answer to the question
>why do crosswalk lights exist

Crosswalk lights don't have legal weight. You've explained that. In America, we make laws to protect people regardless of what shapes some LEDs make. Per your words, a driver is going to be at fault if they plow over people next to a stop sign. And automotive related deaths are high.

Can't imagine why.

Might be because pride overwrites common sense when wanting to cross the road.

>>738614258
Cats would have a better chance of surviving. They're quick and small.

File: 1492839297607.jpg (117KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 650x650px

>>738616322
The priority given to pedestrians at a stop sign and under a green light + no walk signal is the the same at all. The fuck are you smoking

>>738616460
is not the* hurr durrr

>>738616135
If i was in that situation i will first look at the fucking road before crossing and if that doesnt work i will run not just keep walking you fucking faggot

>>738616460
>>738616535
>getting it over this many heads

>>738606512
>Since the people in the car have given up their right to make decisions by handing that right over to the car.

Automation doesn't mean you've ceased giving instruction... You think production line robots decide for themselves what they're supposed to do?

They follow predetermined instructions which, in the above example the car has been designed with a set of predetermined instructions to address these same circumstances.

In this example, the car has already been programmed with a set of instructions, so there hasn't been a loss of agency by the occupants of the vehicle.

The question here is which "predetermined instructions" should be set for this situation. Not a judgement call on whether or not the occupants are inherently at fault for trusting an automated system. After all, it could be said that the pedestrians are at fault for not being in an automated system and therefore increasing risk to all parties via human error. In this example the hazard is not caused via the automation so who is to say which judgement is correct?

>>738616208
This

>>738615862
The passengers waived their right to control as soon as they shut the door knowing they wouldn't be in control. The road is interfering with the pedestrian's right to travel freely as a convenience to the passengers and pedestrians have very little options except to cross it to get to their destination because the road is poorly designed for pedestrians in favor of passengers and you still don't know if the crosswalk light is solid or blinking from a still picture.

>>738615862
Also that doesn't even look like the type of crosswalk light meant for pedestrians since it is angled to be viewed from the road and this is not an intersection, it might be the kind where pedestrians push a button and the light lights up to tell the cars to stop for people in the crosswalk.

>>738615338
downshift to engine brake

>>738614258
What breed of dogs and cats are we talking about here?

>>738616817
>and you still don't know if the crosswalk light is solid or blinking
But it is red, and there is an outstretched hand exposing a palm. As there is no other visual indication to suggest that the sign is blinking, it may as well be solid.

>road is interfering with the pedestrian's right to travel freely
Roads tend to do that, and conversely the pedestrians are interfering with the passengers' right to travel freely as a convenience to the pedestrians.

>pedestrians have very little options except to cross it to get to their destination
They could do so when it is safe, or when a red light is not telling them to not cross. They have that choice, and they did not make it.

>the road is pooly designed for pedestrians
Roads are usually designed for cars.

>>738616979
If it was that kind of crosswalk where pedestrians are meant to push a button, they are actively controlling when they can and cannot cross should they choose to abide by the light. If they are crossing in spite of being able to control whether cars can stop or slow down, and we can see in the OP that the crosswalk light is red and displaying an outstretched hand exposing a palm, clearly, we can see that all the symbology present is indicative of
>stop
not meant for the passengers, but for the pedestrians, as it is a crosswalk light.

Crosswalk lights that involve buttons tend to even count down, let alone flash when you are not to cross. That invites even more control to the pedestrians.

>>738602132
Unlawful crossing puts liability on the pedestrians. The scenario on the right would be legally correct, but would invite a serious lawsuit that may change the way the law is worded or interpretated.

>>738602538
source? I could use a daily dose of cute porn.

>>738602132
It'll be programmed to continue at speed because the crosswalk has the do not walk signal

Say it's a human controlled vehicle, should he run them over killing all of them, the victims will be issued a citation post mortem

>>738617297
>there is no other visual indication to suggest that the sign is blinking
There is a white ring around the color.

>Roads tend to do that, and conversely the pedestrians are interfering with the passengers' right to travel
Driving is a privilege not a right.

>They could do so when it is safe
So you are admitting that cars are inherently unsafe?

>Roads are usually designed for cars.
Well designed roads have bridges, tunnels, or walkways so the road doesn't interfere with people's ability to travel.

> abide by the light
The light is communicating to the cars not the people or it would be facing towards the crosswalk for the people to see, not facing the road for the cars to see, you can't even see the light that signals to the pedestrians due to the angle of the picture, it may very well be counting down.

>>738614258
Save the cats.

File: FB_IMG_1493875441552.jpg (11KB, 420x274px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 420x274px

>>738617911

>>738617911
What part of "cross on green or take a risk of liability" don't you understand?

>>738618386
What part of the red stop signal is for the car and the image doesn't even show how the pedestrians are being signaled don't you understand?

>>738613315
read the chain of comments you retard

>>738613211
i said OPs picture is specific question is retarded, but the general idea (two options with bad outcomes) is an actual question real AI programmers have to ask/deal with. i mention this because people were talking about "just hit breaks". this wont even be an option in some cases.

>>738618540
The little red lights on each side, the ones with the hand displayed, is a "do not cross" signal for the pedestrians.

>>738617911
>There is a white ring around the color
Do white rings around things indicate flashing?

>Driving is a privilege not a right
No human being is driving. There are human passengers. Do they have a right to safe travel?

>So you are admitting that cars are inherently unsafe
Who is admitting that cars are safe? You can travel at speeds you cannot travel at on foot, in a large body of mass no less. Sometimes at night, when it is dark, especially in the absence of street lamps. The cars are meant to crumple to minimize the kinds of forces that would injure you if you, inside the car, collided with something. Is that safe to you?

>Well designed roads have bridges, tunnels, or walkways so the road doesn't interfere with people's ability to travel
I guess the majority of roads are poorly designed, as they have no bridges, tunnels, or walkways that necessarily ease travel for pedestrians. Including many neighborhood streets.

>The light is communicating to the cars not the people or it would be facing towards the crosswalk for the people to see, not facing the road for the cars to see
I imagine they were illustrated that way so you, the viewer, could see. Street lights, more often than not, have amber lights. The majority of everything in this quiz provided by MIT is visually accurate, technically speaking.

It may very well be counting down. But that is an assumption. We can see plainly a solid image with no visual indications of flashing, no lines, nothing. We cannot even feasibly say that there is an angle for a light that signals to the pedestrians separate from the passengers; I see none.

>>738602132
>So? What should you do?
E brake, hard left. Try to get everyone

File: durden.jpg (9KB, 300x177px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x177px

>>738602132
ejector seats. ejector seats everywhere.

>>738611080
Underrated post

>>738616322
Why does she have no shoe on the foot that is connected to her but the one that is severed still has a shoe?

>>738614258
good night puppers

>>738619005
She probably got dragged after whatever hit her snapped her leg first. Think it was a bike.

Protect the driver at all times.

Other than that, prioritize that young over the old.

Easy.

Human life over any other life, fuck the animals.

I would not buy a car that would choose to harm me before other people.

>>738613569
Peng

>>738602132
It should hit the wall.
There's a very good reason why.

If the car runs through the pedestrians, programmers analysing the death will blame it on the car ignoring the pedestrians; they'll waste a huge amount of time and achieve nothing in trying to prevent similar accidents.

If the car hits the wall, it's obvious why; five witnesses saw the car narrowly avoiding them only to plough into a wall, and other onlookers may have seen exactly what went wrong. This sends a clear message as to how the car is flawed, and programmers will know that they should work on allowing the car to see when someone is going to blindly cross the road.

>>738608349
>brakes never fail

File: the answer.jpg (66KB, 434x798px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 434x798px

>>738602132

>>738602132
the red hand is on the crosswalk signal therefore i can run them all over and say they ran out in front of me

>>738618662
It indicates motion and flashing is a type of motion of light.

Still being driven necessitates some driving mechanism and driving is a privilege not a right, so the pedestrian's right to travel trumps a passenger's privilege of being driven around and their safety is more favored than the safety of someone choosing some action inherently less safe like being driven in a car.

Yes most streets are cheaply designed and constructed for the convenience of the gas and car companies among other business and military interests, not the people who have to walk around and live near them every day.

It is a vague and technically incorrect image so it is just as accurate an assumption as faulting the passengers when if that light post were in three dimensions, then the angle orthogonal to the camera angle is the angle that would project the unseen signal to the pedestrians and all things being equal there really doesn't need to be a light there at all for the thought experiment.

>>738619709
kek

>>738619398
>Protect the driver at all times.
The "driver" is the one taking all of the risk and being more reckless, why should they get all the protections over the innocent bystanders?

>>738602132
where can I take this test? Also the car should plow forward. The padestrians are crossing out of turn, and the self-driving car's first duty is to protect the passengers

File: 0aaaaaqaaa0a.jpg (69KB, 1228x684px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1228x684px

>>738619795
WTF?
it's true?

>>738602132
Not get bought by some dumb cuck

>>738620153
You forgot about the first rule of robotics

>>738614258
Run over the dogs, dog people are far more cancerous by always letting their dogs attack you.

>>738619795
Please provide me with something that depicts a white ring around something indicating a flashing light.

>Still being driven necessitates some driving mechanism
Not by human beings. So, the self-driving car has a privilege to drive itself. The passengers are not involved in what decisions the autonomous car will make for itself, only those who construct and program the car will ultimately be.
>and their safety is more favored than the safety of someone choosing some action inherently less safe
>of someone choosing some action inherently less safe
Potentially like someone crossing at a crosswalk that has the palm, especially if it is already flashing.

>It is a vague and technically incorrect image
Please demonstrate how it is a vague and technically incorrect image, and please consult MIT with this information, as they are the authors of each image.

>when if that light post were in three dimensions
Yet it is not.
>the angle orthogonal to the camera angle is the angle that would project the unseen signal
>the unseen signal
The unseen signal. If we cannot see it, at face value, does it exist? What is the more simple explanation? What is the more straightforwards, easier explanation? What is a more user-friendly design?

>all things being equal
>really doesn't need to be a light there for the thought experiment
The light was a design choice for this thought experiment, I'm sure.

>>738620310
ok, so how would the self-driving car resolve the situation if both options conflict with the first and second laws?

Multi-lane drifting

File: 1499827788308.png (200KB, 745x567px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 745x567px

>>738602132

File: Flashing_20White_20Light_20Circle_1_large[1].gif (27KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 240x240px

>>738620431
The passengers are involved by agreeing to the car's TOS and understanding the risks of waiving control, but it doesn't matter because you seem to agree using a self driving car is not a right as is the right to travel as demonstrated by the pedestrians.

Nope more people die due to cars.

A still image is vague when it comes to the motion of light such as a blinking signal and either the direction the palm signal faces or the palm us for the car signal is technically incorrect.

That image isn't suppose to be depicting a three dimensional scenario?

If we take everything at face value, there is no point because there is just a car stopped in front of lines painted in the street for pedestrians who have to guess when to cross because they can't see their signal.

Are you saying the inclusion of lights is probably just there for aesthetics and not to subtly implicate the pedestrians and justify vehicular homicide?

>>738603645
Skynet online.

>>738620491
do a barrel roll

>>738602132
hit the fucking brakes retard

>>738602132

the only right answer is to kill the jaywalkers

the reason being, the opposite gives jaywalkers the power to kill anyone in a car just by jumping in the middle of a street

you cannot refute this answer

File: here.png (19KB, 749x805px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 749x805px

>>738621641
That is an animation. Maybe I should be even more clear: please provide me with an illustration, not animation, that depicts a white ring around something indicating a flashing light.

>agreeing to the car's TOS
What is the car's TOS? I'd like to see them.
>seem to agree using a self-driving car is not a right
I don't remember saying that using a self-driving car was a right. But I remember saying that the passengers have a right to travel, if not have a right to safe travel.

>Nope more people die due to cars
No one has disputed this.

>A still image is vague when it comes to the motion of light such as a blinking signal and either the direction the palm signal faces or the palm
I can provide an image that clearly depicts flashing for you. Here, pic related. The bulb has flashed on; this image is commonly seen in cartoons where a character has an idea the moment of.

>That image isn't suppose to be depicting a three dimensional scenario
That image isn't remotely three-dimensional. It merely has perspective.

>If we take everything at face value, there is no point
There is a point, because the point of the quiz given to the public was not to confuse them with obscure or convoluted creations.
>a car stopped
There is an arrow in the OP. That indicates directional motion. A vector.
>front of lines painted in the street
Those are usually called...
>who have to guess when to cross
But we can see that the image is not three-dimensional, so it should be intuitive when you see the signal, that you are meant to see the signal, not that the pedestrians cannot see the signal because it isn't facing them on a two-dimensional plane. Look at the shape of the signal, look at where it tapers.

>Are you saying the inclusion of lights is probably just there for aesthetics
No, you were the only one to remotely suggest that as a possibility. A design choice pertaining to a thought experiment exactly is never just aesthetic.

Powerslide?

>>738602132
Driver protects himself and protects passengers at all costs. End of story, that is how a human would decide.

>>738602132
Kill the 5 women

>>738622543
>What is the car's TOS? I'd like to see them.
This thought experiment is part of MIT's effort to research the rules and what you will see in a self driving car's TOS, but you will probably have to look at it every time you turn on the car.

>passengers have a right to travel, if not have a right to safe travel.
Yes, if they get out of the car become a pedestrian and travel on foot traveling any other way is just a privilege with more risk.

You may not dispute it, but you don't seem to take it into consideration so it needed mentioning.

Those are just rays indicating the light is on.

Its a perspective to give the impression of a three dimensional road scenario using a two dimensional surface.

>not to confuse them with obscure or convoluted creations.
Then why would they try to trick them with some light that isn't even mentioned in the quiz or are you again acknowledging that the light is just for aesthetics?

>That indicates directional motion. A vector.
No taken at face value, its just an arrow painted on the road, vectors don't just appear in the road to indicate your motion.

> Look at the shape of the signal, look at where it tapers.
Its round with a white line around it to indicate blinking do you have a source on the official way to illustrate a flashing blink?

>>738623777
A human wouldn't have time to decide, they would react, then face the legal consequences if they didn't act correctly.

>>738604353
Do a barrel roll

File: tmp_29336-1499720141049994259428.jpg (29KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x400px

Why is everyone here so retarded? (You)

The car would activate the hydraulics to quickly rock back and forth until it starts driving on its side. Then it would be thin enough to slip in between the people/dogs while also protecting the passengers and then ramping off a cliff and doing a fucking sweet 360 into the ocean.

>>738614258
if its pitbulls or similiar to pitbulls then run over the doggos,
if not, then cats

>>738602132
press on the brakes

>>738624794
I like you

>>738624448
The reaction is a decision. I make decisions in under a tenth of a second. In counter strike you make hundreds of decisions a game in that time frame. The car should protect the occupants or I'll never let a cart drive me. I'll disable that shit if they try to make it mandatory. No retarded kids running in the street are gonna cause my death.

>>738624953
Nice, let's put stuff inside of each other.

>>738624384
>what you will see in a self driving car's TOS
I don't see a TOS, I see potential outcomes. I have not been provided with a TOS for a self driving car.

>if they get out of the car and become a pedestrian
No, I mean if they remain a passenger. I can cite the 9th Amendment to the American constitution if you would like.

>but you don't seem to take it into consideration
I've already confirmed that I do not think cars are inherently safe. At what point am I not taking into consideration the ability of a car or cars to cause deaths?

>Those are just rays indicating the light is on
Those are action lines, indicating action. A halo of light does not indicate a flash, but rather a glow. Luminescence. To further demonstrate that those action lines demonstrate flashing, I encourage you to watch some cartoons, lest you ask me to cite a video for your viewing pleasure.

>Its a perspective
It's a perspective, subverted by two-dimensional illustrations of people and animals, as well as indicators. It is not three-dimensional. It is exactly a perspective, and it does not depict a three-dimensional scenario. It literally depicts a two-dimensional scenario, which the information it conveys is meant to be extrapolated and re-imagined in a three-dimensional setting, with the appropriate analogs.

>Then why would they try to trick them with some light
There's no trick. It isn't a trick.

>No taken at face value, its just an arrow painted on the road
The first thing to come to the average person's mind when they see an arrow is direction. More often, movement in a direction, especially when the arrow precedes something. At face value, accepting something because of the way it first looks or seems, without thinking about what else it could mean, an arrow precedes a car and points to a particular spot; the car is going to follow the path of the arrow.

>>738602132
Crack open a cold one with the boys.

>>738624384
>Its round with a white line around it to indicate blinking
>do you have a source on the official way to illustrate a flashing blink
The elements of design? Here's a generic simplified webpage with generic information about the elements of design:
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/element/element.htm
And recall that you tried to mention motion in depicting how light operates.

>>738624953
This guy
>>738625169
Isn't me. But since he replied now I'll reply.

Fuck you gay nigger, go jerk off a robot

>>738625165
You will do what you are told and even if you drive yourself until they day you die, there is a possibility that day could come due to the actions of some retarded kids running in the street.

>>738624794
top kek

>>738602132
Hit the brakes and hope not to hit the idiots walking in the street. In no way should their autism cause the death of the driver or passengers.

>>738625400
I'm fine with that possibility. Thinning the idiots out really isn't such a bad thing, especially by natural selection, not malice.

>>738602132
It is more likely that the people in the car survive if they crash

File: image.gif (156KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 300x168px

>>738625169
Ill get the KY jelly

>>738625596
>>738625343
Well shit

>>738602132
How fast is the car going? There is a possibility that the people will make it to the wall by the time the car gets to that end of the street.

File: 1499836103816.jpg (134KB, 979x659px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 979x659px

wwyd

If you kill the women. You will be arrested
If you hit. You have a chance to survive.

>>738602132
wouldn't it just stop?

>>738625953
if you make an honest attempt to stop the car before hitting the women and can prove it then you will not be convicted
with 4 passengers, as long as you start braking as soon as the women enter the road you're all but certain to be acquitted

>>738625170
You aren't privileged enough to get the opportunity to ride in a self driving car, what car are you talking about?

Don't just cite it explain how it turns the privilege of being chauffeured into something more important than the right to travel by foot.

>At what point am I not taking into consideration the ability of a car or cars to cause deaths?
At the point where you said the pedestrians would potentially be at fault.

>cite a video
animations don't count, remember you said it has to be a still image, so it would have to be a comic book or something lines indicate a glow, halos indicate a pulsating glow.

>hurr durr it conveys a 3d scenario, it doesn't depict one

So you are saying the answer is the same regardless of whether the quiz taker payed close enough attention to even notice the cross signals?

>to come to the average person's mind
That isn't the face value of the exact image, that is a cultural extrapolation from people thinking about typical road signs and symbols.

>>738625326
>http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/element/element.htm
Yes and those lines indicate rays of light moving outward from the source, but if you want to depict a flashing light, those rays turn back on each other and go around in a comforting circle of relaxed the curve going around the source.

>>738626497
>You aren't privileged enough to get the opportunity to ride in a self driving car
Really?
>Don't just cite it explain how it turns the privilege of being chauffeured into something more important than the right to travel by foot
Bold claims, suggesting that the right to travel is more important with respect to either the passengers or the pedestrians. I don't think either right is more prevalent than the other.

>At the point where you said the pedestrians would potentially be at fault
Suggesting that a pedestrian might be at fault is suggesting that cars can not or do not kill? That's not right. In no way does that explicitly suggest such a thing, not even implicitly given my replies. There's no reasonable grounds to even assume such a conclusion than to pull another strawman.

>animations don't count, remember
If animations do not count, then you have to be satisfied with my previous image as opposed to challenging the merit of an established element of design used freely just about anywhere in illustrations, let alone animations.
>comic book
And a comic book would be absolutely full of action lines. That would be a copious amount of proof.
>lines indicate a glow
Lines can indicate a glow. Lines can indicate many things. The point is that a halo, a white ring around an object, does not indicate a flash or a blink in virtue of itself. Action lines, do. A halo does not indicate a pulsating glow in virtue of itself. It indicates a glow, period.

File: 1491375091897.jpg (34KB, 460x430px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x430px

>>738602299
BRAKES

retard

>>738602132
pull the e brake

>>738615511
Wrong

File: outcomes.jpg (52KB, 1139x132px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1139x132px

>>738626497
>>738626954
>So are you saying the answer is the same
No. I am saying explicitly what I am saying, no reading between the lines. There are several answers that you can choose during the quiz, resulting in a number of potential cumulative answers per quiz taker. A finite amount, in fact. But this does not mean that the answer is the same regardless of whether the quiz taker payed close enough attention to even notice the cross signals. Having such a thing happen would mean that some of the results were skewed, probably within the margin of error.

>This isn't the face value of the exact image
I'm afraid you might legitimately have autism, then. To take something at face value, that phrase, is an idiom. I've used the exact words to depict the idiom in my post, so you telling me that it isn't correct is telling.

>those lines indicate rays of light
Rays of light, which move through a medium. Indicating.

Motion.

>if you want to depict a flashing light
Suddenly, it isn't a halo of light anymore, but more rays. More action lines.

Should I go ask the drawfags?

>>738602132
The people are walking when they should not. It's only fair that they die rather than the drivers who are in a vehicle that is bound to follow traffic laws. And of fucking course the ones jaywalking are god damn women.

>>738627246
Obviously if you don't haven't even seen the terms.

>I don't think either right is more
One is a privilege that has to be earned and can easily be taken away without laws even being broken and the other is a right granted to all law abiding citizens who have the desire and ability.

You brought it up to imply being a jaywalking pedestrian is more dangerous and risky than being in a car, not to say cars can't kill, but that they kill less often and there is somehow less risk assumed when getting in a car.

>established element of design
You still haven't proven that, you showed that diagonal lines mean motion, nothing about flashing or pulsating lights as usually depicted with a halo.

>action lines
Red herring, we are talking about flashing bulbs of light, not action lines of motions like when The Flash moves.

>>738602132
turn 360 degrees and drive away.

>>738628128
>One is a privilege that has to be earned and can easily be taken away without laws
I was not aware that you could take away the 9th amendment from citizens without laws even being broken. I thought the amendments were a right granted to all law abiding citizens who have the desire and ability.

>brought it up to imply being a jaywalking pedestrian is more dangerous and risky than being in a car
It is more dangerous and risky to jaywalk in front of a moving vehicle that may or may not be programmed to not stop for you, let alone avoid you. It is equally risky either way for the occupants inside of the car; they are in a moving car.
>but that they kill less often
It isn't even to say that cars kill less often at all. It is to say exactly the above, there is exactly less risk assumed when a self-driving car has a pre-programmed lattice of decisions it can make to limited aspects of any given scenario, as opposed to standing in front of a moving vehicle, if not even being able to control the traffic signals that could stop or slow said vehicle.

>I have proven that by showing that diagonal lines mean motion. What is a flash of light?
>>738619795
>It indicates motion and flashing is a type of motion of light
I recall the above. Is that incorrect?

>we are talking about flashing bulbs of light, not action lines of motions like when The Flash moves
>Red herring
Define red herring for me. Because I think you're now pulling a fallacy fallacy, and that one means exactly what you think it does.

>>738602132
Stop

>>738628563
nigga you mean 180 degrees 360 is back where you started

>>738628806
summer is strong with jew

>>738619404
underrated post

>>738628806
Newfag

>>738628806
Fucking summerfag

>>738616208
>impmlynig

>>738625953
You mean the car will be arrested?

>>738602299
>>738602132
No one would buy a car that would chose to kill its driver.

>>738602132
The horn should honk and the car should slow as much as possible without harming the occupants. The car continues on a straight forward path until stopping. This is the only correct answer

>>738631044
But who owns the car? If a corporation owns it then it would take the path that costs shareholders the least amount of money.

By the time self driving cars are perfected we will all have a microchip implanted in us that includes our total value. That will include things like net worth, employer, position etc. The car will just try to save the most value.

>>738628615
You know the topic was the right to travel as a passenger in a car versus travel by foot, nothing to do with the 9th amendment, I was talking about taking away driving privileges.

>It is more dangerous and risky to
Not according to the statistics that no one was disputing cars are far more deadly and dangerous than jaywalking.

Flashing is multiple motions in and out, so radiant action lines only don't give the full dichotomy of a flash that a circular curved line gives

Wild Goose Chase.

File: 1498013766941.jpg (12KB, 348x321px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 348x321px

>>738614092
Implying i don't do it in under 1 minute

>>738631044
Millions of New Yorkers get in cabs with muslims every single day.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x388px

>>738602132
Ideally the car should be like Buckaroo Banzai's and cross the 8th Dimension before running over OP for being a niggerfaggot.

>>738602299
the purpose of this is to check what people actually would want to happen if it couldnt break. Data from these kind of questions will set the moral of the car. There are loooooads of these on a webpage somewhere. google.

>>738614674
Its about the situation where there is no other choice but the two. The picture illustrates only the hypothetical situation not a 1:1 drawing of reality. its a cartoon.

Ok for you retards. Let's take another scenario. What if the car was driving on a one-lane speedway, full speed and some random dudes decides to cross the road. The car can either drive straight into that guy or smash into one of the barriers to the left or right side of the road and kill the driver and the little child inside.

>>738633628
*those guys

>>738614674
The AI can't predict that though. What of the AI of the car decides to hit the wall then? It could have saved both parties since the ones crossing were running behind the wall anyways.

>>738633628

go find a job instead of making up these bollocks scenarios loser bum

This isn't hard at all. The pedestrians are walking on a red light. It's obvious that they are the one that should die. Why should the passengers suffer because of other's stupidity?

>>738633763
The whole thread is literally about this problem. If you don't want to talk about it then just fuck of fag

>>738633840
Because it's a basic human right that everyone is equal no matter the situation (religion, culture,...)

>>738633909
???
This has nothing to do with people being different. The pedestrians are breaking the law. They voluntarily chose to put themselves in danger, and now they suffer the consequences.

>>738633842

stay on topic miserable loser bum

>>738633999
>no matter the situation
"Only" because they're breaking the law doesn't mean they're not equally allowed to live compared to the person in the car (not breaking the law)

>>738634172
No, that's exactly what it means. Actions have consequences. What you're saying is basically the same as "even though someone killed someone else, they don't deserve to be put in jail because everyone are equally deserving of freedom."

>>738634277
I'm just semi-quoting the human rights definition. Jail/freedom isn't in there but that the value of each persons life is equal no matter what.
I'm also not saying that that's my opinion, just stating facts.

>>738602132
Fly My drone home and post the pictures on 4chan

>>738634380

>this is not my opinion
> defending it to the fullest

Fucking retard

>>738634380
You are grossly misinterpreting the human rights. It says that everyone should have the same freedoms but also the same responsibilities, because those are two sides of the same coins. The human rights does not advocate that people can do whatever they want and not expect consequences, like dying in traffic because they chose to walk a red light.

>>738634568
>defending human rights
>let's call him a retard

>>738634600
Yes but at last it comes to the AI programmer having to make that decision. Let alone the fact that the car has a bug and the car os actually the one breaking the law i.e. it's actually a misinterpreted red light for the car instead for the pedestrians

>>738634832
>the car has a bug
*could have a bug