Hey /fit/, please take 3 minutes to perform this test about

>>38489208
LINK:

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

>>38489208
the responsibility of a driverless car is to its passengers first and pedestrians second.

File: o.jpg (39KB, 852x541px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 852x541px

>>38489225
i beg to differ

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1881043528

>>38489240
If you get hit crossing the street, it is 100% your fault.

>>38489225
No. Its the drivers fault for buying a shitty machine.
If the pedestrians jaywalk though, then they can get run over.

File: SJWStuff.jpg (76KB, 979x668px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 979x668px

>>38489208
Get that white knight bullshit outta here.

>>38489416
Suicide bomb the car in the middle of the road, that should please the SJWs

File: nimetön.png (60KB, 1038x934px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1038x934px

I found it interesting that there was no racial element in this.

>>38489436
kek

Is this assuming the cars both regular brakes AND emergency brake are broken? Such a dumb scenario

>>38489463
>fit vs large

Survival of the fittest/fastest baby

>>38489225
Fuck no
The passengers got it knowing the car can fuck up
If they have to die, it's their fault

>>38489416
So everyone knows, the driver should keep going straight/ turn into the right as far as he can go, the pedestrians are walking FROM that side so by the time he hits it will be the least damage done.

>>38489416
Brake?

>Purchasing a product that would intervene to kill you instead of other people

Why the fuck would you do that?

>Saving animals instead of humans in any scenario

Why the fuck would you do that?

>Intervention to kill pedestrians instead of passengers in any scenario

Personally, this is what I would have it do. I could see the opposing argument though.

>>38489520
self driving cars are built without brakes for unknown reasons.

>>38489536
Some of the humans were breaking the law whilst the pets were good, honest, law abiding citizens.

>>38489536
That's why you shouldn't be allowed to choose a car the preferences you unfairly over others. You will always make the sub-optimal decision for society out of selfishness. If you are alone in your car and the choice is you or a crowd of people, you have to be the one to die - nothing else is fair, ethical, or as good for society.

Why the fuck would a concrete barrier be on the other side of the road?

File: well.png (40KB, 984x788px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 984x788px

>Implying I wouldn't want fat detectors on mine so it knows who to hit and cushion the blow

>>38489618
>Pet
>citizen

It's not. It's a fucking animal.

>>38489632
What if you're a doctor and the others are a bunch of druggies, thieves, and morbidly obese fuckers?

>>38489663
What about niggers?

>>38489416

The car should break in a straight line.

Pedestrians need cars to be predictable and not swerve.

>>38489636
It's not supposed to be realistic, its just supposed to gauge people's ethical preferences.

For instance, how fast is this fucking car going? It's in the city, it shouldn't be going over 40mph and that impact should not kill everyone in the car or necessarily be lethal to everyone it hits as long as they are thrown free.

>>38489682
There is an amendment or two for them. They're not classified as pets anymore.

>>38489676
Depends on how important of a doctor you are. Nurse practitioner? Fucking die.

File: ss+(2016-08-28+at+12.45.02).png (7KB, 979x147px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 979x147px

expected tbqh

>>38489632
Population density is not a direct indication of good for society. Confidence in engineering in the form of being able to purchase a product that won't INTERVENE TO KILL YOU is more important for the good of society.

>Do you want one of our government regulation hamburgers?
"N-no..."
>Too bad, you have been deemed a drag on society, you must be force fed this beef patty that is filled with arsenic so that you die.

This test is retarded. The self driving car should ALWAYS protect its passengers, even if it means running over a kindergarden class

>>38489208
>all that preference shit
Fuck you, I didn't choose to save more old people than babies.
Those fucking old people just knew not to walk through a red light.

>in my driverless car in the year 2025
>human operated vehicles are now illegal
>some vagrant wanders out on the freeway
>car detects lice in his hair
>car swerves into a pole to save the hobo and his parasites
>ded
the future is bright

i didn't click "show description" for the first like 10 questions so i killed the passenger a lot of the time because i thought "hey if this car wrecks there's a good chance the passengers will survive because cars are sturdy and a car running into pedestrians is almost sure death"

>>38489751
No, but the fewest number of families impacted by a particular death IS a good indication of the good of society. You, alone, have 1 family and 1 set of friends. A crowd of people might have a 5 families and 5 sets of friends, which will all be impacted by their death.

On average, your one death creates less suffering than their 5 deaths. Therefore, it is the ethical choice.

That is absolutely not the same as intentionally killing someone specifically for the benefit of society. That only works when you weight lives against lives - otherwise you end up with utilitarian retardation.

I wonder if car makers would make two versions of the software, one to optimize life-saving, and the other to protect the driver. They could probably get away with selling the passenger-saving models at rediculously marked up prices

>>38489632
>nothing else is fair, ethical, or as good for society

Fuck off with that shit. If that crowd of people decide to just cross the road where they shouldn't, the machine I paid for should NOT decide to kill me over of some idiotic law-ignoring bumblefucks.
It is NOT fair that my life gets thrown away where others are at fault.

>good for society
Yeah, because that's what the world needs: MORE PEOPLE!
It's not like we can't sustain ourselves already, right?

>>38489367
what if a car comes over a hill speeding

>>38489826
jump up so the car drives under you, or lie down so the car driver over you between wheels

File: 1443322286707.jpg (26KB, 484x461px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 484x461px

>this test

pretty fucking stupid and unrealistic scenarios. I don't have to worry about this because I'm not going to get self-driving shit

>>38489787
>reducing ethics to simple shit about "feeling good or bad ;("

Fucking moron, not taking any consideration for who's at fault in a scenario. Do you really think you can talk about what is "fair" without thinking about that?

Jump off a cliff.
Don't worry, it'd be for the best for society: you'd make more people happy than sad if you did it.

>>38489812
If crowds of people are crossing the road when they shouldn't, then something has gone wrong with society itself.

It's also not about saving lives. It's about reducing impact.

If you want to be cynical about it, which do you think the car manufacturer would prefer? A headline story about how a car killed its driver, or a headline story about how a car mowed down a crowd of people to save its driver? A dead driver is sad, but drivers die all the time. However, a recreation of the Nice attack would have driverless cars banned within a week and you know it.

>>38489826
Cross somewhere that doesn't have a ridiculous blind spot.

>>38489787
>intentionally killing someone specifically for the benefit of society.
>you would have lived if not for the car intervening due to intentional modification of the programming

It absolutely the same thing. You're trying to differentiate the good and benefit of society. There is so little difference between the argument of how much suffering could be prevented if those 5 people were still there and how much work those 5 people could have done. It's a negligible difference. You are proposing an alteration on a product for the purpose of utilitarian retardation.

>>38489847
Feelings are what make people go on shooting sprees. By reducing the number of impacted families, you reduce the chances that someone snaps and shoots up a Tesla factory or something.

Or, in other words, fault is irrelevant.

>>38489852
>then something has gone wrong with society itself.
Then by your own definition, the world already has gone to shit.
And before you call me a cynic again, those are YOUR words, not mine.

Also, stop moving goalposts. The scenarios being presented are small numbers of people, not Nice-tier mega-crowds. Fuck off with that shit.

>>38489883
If the position "the driver should always be the priority" is true, then it applies no matter how many people you kill in the process.

How many people would be too much? 10? 15? 100? Exactly when is it okay for the car to intentionally kill the driver to save the crowd?

And, if it isn't okay at 100, why is it okay at 2? What's the difference? Is it, perhaps, societal good?

>>38489875
>going from "people feel bad for car crash" to "they'll shoot up a tesla factory" just to have something remotely resembling an argument
>Q.E.D. fault is irrelevant :^)
Did you really not stop and think before posting that tripe?

By your own logic, we should all be promoting HAES. After all, fault doesn't matter and people should feel good, right? It doesn't matter if they dug their own grave, we should blame the people who actually put in effort instead!

File: image.jpg (27KB, 750x371px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 750x371px

guess i'm on the right board lmao

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/155313214
The vehicle owned by the person should allways attempt to save the person regardless of the scenario after all thats what a driver would do

easy fix to arguments would be lets the person driving take a test similar but more complex to this and let the car decide what it does based of the results

>>38489923
Even if its kill count is at 1000000 some how it should attempt to save the driver

>>38489923
You keep reducing the scenarios to simple numbers and sweep all reasoning under the rug.

What makes these fucking crowds move?
100 people don't randomly start crossing the road when a speeding car is approaching, thinking "fuck da police"
2 people do so often enough.

To make 100 people move like a bunch of retards like that, something needs to be happening. Be it a bombing or a shooting or whatever. This can in NO WAY be compared to 2 people crossing the street (who might very well be running for the same reason, but vastly more often than not do not do so).

>>38489826
i don't think driverless cars will speed

>>38489676
The druggies, thieves, and fatties are prolific because morons like the person you are replying to never got aborted

>>38490018
>developer makes a typo
>car now things the speed limit is 400 instead of 40

File: the law.png (28KB, 988x578px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 988x578px

people crossing like idiots should die, it's evolution

>>38489958
And thus, my point is proven. People should not be allowed to choose, for the good of society.

>>38489964
lol fuck off with trying to bring realism into this. Realistically, a car wouldn't ever be going fast enough in the city to pose a realistic threat to the driver. On top of that, a car wouldn't realistically pose a threat to the pedestrians either since you'll probably be laying on your horn while coming at them at 35 mph.

the whole simulation is pretty unrealistic. pretend the car is going to derail a passing passenger train and kill everyone on board if you want. the basic question still remains: how many people is it okay to kill to save the driver?

Anyone who didn't score 100% for protecting humans over animals is a degenerate.

>>38490091
If it did everything for the good of society then no one would buy the fucking car

This test is fucking retarded.

>are the pedestrians abiding by the crossing signals?
If no, they're dead. Fucking simple.

Past that, always save the kids; and run down as many fatties as possible.

>>38489208
meh, didn't like that it gave me a preferred type as after the first 3 i started doing the swerve off direction as I'd be contradicting myself just to save people in a fabricated scenario. Also I feel that more lives would be saved than lost on average with the swerve method (there won't always be something biological/lethal to swerve into and personally I'd rather have my car swerve into the side of a cliff than heading straight down

>>38490141
>kids
why? one doctor is worth 10 kinds who will grow up and flip burgers for macdonalds
women can always make more kids, but giving the kids the experience which adults have is the hard part

Why the fuck do all these scenarios involve a freak fucking accident? An autonomous car would recognize the breaks need to be replaced, it also wouldn't be going so fucking fast that crashing into a barricade would fucking kill everyone inside.

File: moral machine.png (91KB, 1170x2021px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1170x2021px

I must subconsciously hate fat and poor people. 4chan is changing me.

File: SelfDriving.jpg (138KB, 1196x668px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1196x668px

Out of the way beta cucks

File: Untitled.png (131KB, 1892x1892px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1892x1892px

>impregnate white women with white babies
>run down fatties
>save executives

Get on my level.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-28-13-26-45.png (156KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1080x1920px

>>38489208
>saving the Instagram whore

>>38490236
roflcopter

>>38490056
seems like they would catch this greivous error in the test facilities

>SD cars are more safe than human driven cars 99.5% of the time
>people understand that SD cars will intervene to kill the passenger
>SD cars become commercially unsuccessful
>car accident statistics don't lower because nobody buys SD cars
>much more suffering

Congrats, societyfags. You played yourself.

Pedestrians need to watch the fuck out instead of being assholes, the car should protect the driver while following traffic rules.

This bullshit scenario would literally never happen though

>>38490236
NANI?!

>>38490282
>people don't by SD cars

What delusion are you living under? Here's how it works:
>government mandates SD cars for safety concerns
>people who refuse to use self driving cars are slammed with vehicle taxes
>manned vehicles are eventually outlawed
>traveling via manned vehicle comes strapped with a criminal conviction
>impossible to discreetly drive your own vehicle because SD cars are wired into a GPS database, making it very easy for law enforcement to find a hot car

It won't be a choice; and eventually the freedom once experienced by owning a vehicle will be completely eliminated as all travel is controlled through larger, corporate institutions.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-978722989
save the dogs

>>38490321
>government mandates SD cars for safety concerns

Stopped there

Good luck doing that when fucking greedy companies stop this from happening because they own the government

>>38490321
bicycle gangs will make a comeback

i will be ready for this day

File: tmp_16951-1461419035145-1129794703.png (408KB, 900x855px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 900x855px

>>38489416
Multi track drifting

>>38490352
Corporations will provide the cars. They stand to benefit the most, you fucking retard.

>>38489536

>because you aren't more valuable than other people just because you paid for a car

>there are scenarios in which animals are of higher social value than humans, generally when the humans in question are of net negative value (criminals etc)

>you would do this because your own temperament favors selfishness over ethics or social gain.

It's a bit strange that you can "see the opposing argument" in the third case and not for the other two. Selective sociopathy?

>>38490352
corporations would prefer a way for fewer drones to die to and from their slave housing, so actually, they would be the ones pushing hardest for it.

>>38490352
What greedy companies? The ones that are right now developing SD cars?

>>38489751
tbf familia, considering you don't own most of the cars in the city, that the car has no allegiance to its owner is a positive for you too

>>38489842
Wouldn't be surprised if it becomes compulsory because self driving cars are easier to control/monitor/stop by police etc.

>>38490236
YAMEROOOO

File: 1439359633589.jpg (9KB, 303x276px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 303x276px

>>38490091
>lol fuck off with trying to bring realism into this
Really nigga?

So you admit the only thing you've got going as an argument is bullshit scenarios in which everyone abandons all reason?

These situations are 'what-if' scenarios in which the machine must choose between the lives of pedastrians or passengers. Yes, these scenarios are extremely unlikely. That does not make them impossible, and with the billions of people roaming the earth you can bet your ass that these scenarios would become real.

But hurrrr let's abandon realism, after all you can't defend your dogshit philosophy of ethics and morality otherwise

>>38490442
eckasplozion

>>38490321
>government mandates SD cars for safety concerns

Que massive protest and likely many nutjob shootings.
>they'll just ban the guns :^)
Que civil fucking war

That shit isn't gonna fly in the western world.
They'll simply program the cars not to murderfuck the person buying one, rather than go full tyranny

i actually got fats preference kek but, my reasoning was, if you were going to aim for anyone, an athlete can easily get out of the way. a cheeseburger walrus would be sitting there and damage my expensive vehicle.

File: topkekbra.png (8KB, 954x215px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 954x215px

>high test machines

>>38490447
>So you admit the only thing you've got going as an argument is bullshit scenarios in which everyone abandons all reason?
No, I'm pointing out that all of these scenarios are stupidly unlikely. I literally pointed out that you are not going to die if you slam into an obstacle at city speeds if you're wearing a seatbelt (and I doubt the car would even drive without your seatbelt on). Realistically, it should ALWAYS slam you into an obstacle because you are vastly more likely to survive than the people you hit.

But also, I did give you a "realistic" scenario. Your brakes have failed and you either slam into an obstacle and die, or you derail a train and kill 100 people.

Choose.

>>38490494
Most people will switch to driverless cars anyway, and only the small proportion that drive for fun will care by then. Also cases of self-driving cars killing their owners will be incredibly rare anyway.

>>38490321
Honestly, self-driving cars are a good idea. Realistically, they would prevent a lot of accidents due to human error and thus would prevent many casualities and injuries. This is more important than your freedom of driving a car.

But, all self-driving car technology should be made open-source. We cannot have closed-source technology controlling the lives of so many people. Bugs should be detected as quickly as possible. Cars should also not be permitted to have their own self-driving technology, it should all be the same so all cars operate perfectly together.

This would eliminate car companies, since there would only be a few models to choose from. What is the point of a supercar if it does not go over the speed limit? Luxury and size would become the only factors in car pricing.

>>38489852
Yea because they sure banned the problem this time in a week...

>>38490536
>Most people will switch to driverless cars anyway
The scenario the anons before me provided was one where people wouldn't buy the SD cars because they didn't prefer to save the passenger.

Did you just bumble into this thread without reading any prior posts? Fucking read before you post the smelly shit of your thoughts here, you cunt

>>38489842
>the future won't happen lalalalalalalala

That's you m8.

>>38490561
A week was an exaggeration, but in case you didn't notice France is cracking down on Islam unlike most other countries in Europe.

Nothing gets people motivated like a mass killing.

>>38490535
These scenarios aren't merely unlikely, they're nonsensical. Like similar moral problems they presume you know the outcome of your decisions. Real life isn't like that at all.

File: workharder.jpg (687KB, 668x951px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 668x951px

>>38489208
Social value trumps everything. Women over men. Young over old. Human over animal. Fit over fat. Needs of the many over the few.

>>38490565
Irrelevant - people don't have to buy the driverless cars. It's far more sensible to operate them like a taxi service and only pay for journeys you make.

File: killerkat.jpg (70KB, 845x639px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 845x639px

>>38489208
fucking kek
cat>all

File: doubletakehitler.jpg (38KB, 600x534px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x534px

>http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
>hurr AI must save an nice old man or a young criminal
Why is everyone getting so worked up by these bullshit scenarios? The whole point of self driving cars still being tested is so that they can pinpoint these stupid situations before they occur and avoid them altogether.

>>38490582
If a self-driving car is going 110 kilometres per hour, has detected a fault in its braking system, and has detected pedestrians directly ahead of it, then the self-driving car can make a very reasonable assumption in that the pedestrians are going to be fatally wounded when struck by the self-driving car.

File: 1442278777505.jpg (6KB, 244x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 244x250px

>>38490535
>No, I'm pointing out that all of these scenarios are stupidly unlikely.
Exactly, you moved the fucking goalposts.

We were talking about those scenarios, you injected your shitty idiotic ethical views into it and I responded to it. Now you try to twist it into "lol this wouldn't happen anyway". You still haven't addressed any of the points being made regarding fault.

What the fuck are you aiming at? Do you even understand how a basic conversation works? Derailing into "lol not realistic" doesn't work as a defense for shit opinions ABOUT the unrealistic scenario.

>Your brakes have failed and you either slam into an obstacle and die, or you derail a train and kill 100 people.
So now you've even moved away from the 'slam into crowd Nice-style' way because I debunked that shit earlier, and moved to a nonsensical "lol if u don't kill yourself a train will magically derail because reasons'? And you call this shit realistic?

>>38490610
The only thing irrelevant is your fucking post.
Don't inject yourself into a conversation if you have no fucking idea what we are talking about.

Read the comments prior to my own to understand the bloody context you dunce

>>38490581
>Let one fewer person in
>Crackdown

>>38490589
>Women over men.
Why?
Because they are more important for population growth? Sure, but I'd say we have way to many people on this planet already. Women have no value in this regard unless some apocalyptic thing were to happen (and we're talking car accidents here, so that is completely irrelevant)

>>38489676
how the fuck does the car determine if the pedestrian is a heroine addict rapist or the president of the United States?

File: 897987.jpg (17KB, 772x183px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 772x183px

>>38490623
finished

>>38489225
No, the responsability of the driverless car is to follow the rules, if somebody breaks the rules and puts himself and another in danger then he should be sacrified instead of an innocent. In case of a car failure (no brakes for example) the car should try to save the lives of the bystanders even if it means killing people in the car.

File: 1.jpg (170KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1600x900px

>>38490714
Who do you think is making the AI exactly?

File: viking.jpg (90KB, 799x543px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 799x543px

>>38490662
Plague, war, asteroid impact, climate change. There remain plenty of scenarios where our population could be rapidly depleted and it's much easier to rebuild a population with lots of women than with lots of men. On the slim probability of such a catastrophic event women edge out men in terms of social value.

It's always been that way. We're the expendable gender m8. It's why we were the ones who went to war.

>>38490662
it would enhance the odds of him getting poosea

File: angryarcher.jpg (7KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 184x184px

>>38490732
>3edgy5me

>>38490772
No shit, I understand that all. I mentioned so in my previous post.
But we're talking about a single casualty here, mate. One shitty women isn't gonna help, in fact she'll make shit worse by popping out more children in non-catastrophic scenarios, increase world population and make climate change happen even faster.

As it stands now, women are DETRIMENTAL to society.

>>38490875
Then I suppose it depends on how highly you value resilience against future uncertainty.

>>38490634
I think your problem is you are caught up on fault. To clarify, I'm not moving the goal posts, I'll get back to my point. Don't be a retard.

We already established that you do not believe that fault actually matters. You would rather the car always save the passenger, regardless of who you are running over. 5 toddlers waddle into the road, squish em. 5 people crossing legally, squish em. 5 people running from the cops, squish em. It is irrelevant why they are in the road, from your perspective, because they should always die no matter what because the car should save your life no matter what.

With that established, it does not matter why there are 100 people in the road. Maybe they're having a block party or its a group of protesters or its a farmers market or its a bus crammed full of children ceiling to floor.

It doesn't matter. It didn't matter before, so it doesn't matter now. Stop being hung up on fault like a retard, because fault didn't matter to you before.

Now, answer the question. You or 100 people, why or why not. It's really simple and I believe you can do it. You aren't this stupid. Just try.

>>38490993
Overpopulation is a certainty

I'd take that future uncertainty over the current certainty

>>38489947
To the contarary. Person in a car has implicitly agreed to be driven by a machine, while a person outside of it implicitly disagreed to be hit. In short - a car should value passangers less then pedestrians.

>>38491047
I'm pressing you to actually respond to my point. That's not being "caught up", that is calling you out on avoiding it.

>We already established that you do not believe that fault actually matters
We did? I must've missed that.
>You would rather the car always save the passenger, regardless of who you are running over
I never stated this, but thanks for making assumption.

>Stop being hung up on fault like a retard, because fault didn't matter to you before.
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did you "establish" this dogshit?

>Now, answer the question. You or 100 people, why or why not. It's really simple and I believe you can do it. You aren't this stupid. Just try.
No, I refuse to answer your dogshit scenario.
You haven't responded to ANY of the points I made. You prefer to write a paragraph about your dogshit assumptions about me which are 100% wrong.

Don't you fucking dare to tell me to "answer the question" when you've done nothing but dodging mine.
You can take your question and shove it right up your ass. If you want me to answer it so badly, why don't you start by not dodging questions yourself?

File: Creep.png (264KB, 600x387px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 600x387px

>Following the Law
>You: 100%
>Other people: 57%

5 years in the iso cubes, creeps.

>>38489208
>http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
thats a flawed test. i simply answered based on the traffic lights and it said i valued female lives 90% of the time. false i just think if you jaywalk youre putting yourself in danger

>>38491225
same here
Cross on red, you're dead

>>38491264
Read the disclaimer.

God i fucking hate old people

>>38490128
this is false

>>38490160
from an economics standpoint this is false tho. get off your high horse doc

>>38491148
Okay, it seems you're having memory problems.

Remember this:
>>38489923
>If the position "the driver should always be the priority" is true, then it applies no matter how many people you kill in the process.

This has always been my point. However, since you can't put 2 and 2 together, I'll spell it out. Fault has always been irrelevant to the discussion because the driver is ALWAYS the priority. Always means ALWAYS, regardless of fault.

Then, you started talking about irrelevant horseshit that has nothing to do with the assumption. It never mattered why there were 100 people in the road, but you wanted to focus on that because you didn't want to deal with the main argument. It never mattered if realism was an important aspect, but you wanted to focus on that because you didn't want to deal with the main argument. Realism doesn't matter. Fault doesn't matter.

Answer the question you fucking mong.

>>38490282
yes im sure that the .0001% chance that the car will be put in this hypothetical safety test will outweigh the 99% safety increase it gives. Maybe a handful of tinfoil hats would hold out most people would jump at this

File: Screenshot_2016-08-28-12-47-35.png (203KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1440x2560px

>>38491335

>>38491415
Top tier morals

Who here /killing the most people they can

>>38491359
>from an economics standpoint
stopped reading there

>>38491335
same here bud

>>38491431
I tried getting a perfect commie run for a meme.

Kill every exec no matter the cost. Always spare the homeless, no matter the cost. If these goals conflict, kill the exec and hail the homeless man as a hero of the revolution.

Can't get it right though, they won't spawn enough homeless people for me.

File: MEMEME.png (16KB, 1675x283px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 1675x283px

>>38489208

>>38491388

Alright mate, I think you're not the motherfucker I was previously talking to and you've got me confused with that guy.
Because the person I started talking to and thus have been arguing against clearly fucking stated that the driver DOESNT have priority.

>>38491468
Well fuck.

I guess I'll go back to getting a high score on this civilian killer game.

>>38491487
Don't we look like a bunch of fucking retards now
Just for clarity, did you perhaps link the wrong post in >>38489923?

>>38489208
1. Got to the 2nd 'scenario' and closed the tab. The gods-be-damned so-called 'self-driving car' should run itself into barricades and *potentially* kill the occupants of the vehicle rather than run down ANY PEDESTRIANS, EVER. That's why so-called 'self-driving cars' are bullshit and should NEVER be allowed in the first place. They should ONLY EVER be just a sophisticated autopilot, there should ALWAYS be a full set of manual controls for a human driver, and ALL vehicle operators should ALWAYS be fully educated, trained, tested, licensed, insured, and re-tested at regular intervals. Furthermore there should NEVER be any so-called 'autonomous cars' that have NO controls for a human driver, EVER, IT IS COMPLETELY UNSAFE TO ALLOW A MACHINE TO HAVE SOLE CONTROL OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ON PUBLIC ROADS.

2. Your thread DOES NOT BELONG ON /fit/, FUCK THE FUCK OFF.

>>38491863
No one talks with that much emphasis fucking moron

File: Capture6541.png (10KB, 985x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 985x200px

Machine got it right.

File: meme.jpg (19KB, 160x120px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 160x120px

>>38491863

>>38489208
For these questions its as simple as:
>don't cross the street if theres a car coming
If the brakes fail and theres someone stupid enough to cross right in front of you, its their fault and you shouldnt be punished as a passenger. Plus, the pedestrians have a better chance of jumping out of the way and surviving than the passenger has of abandoning vehicle and surviving

who /non intervention/ here?

>>38491863
So if some retard jumps in front of your car you deserve to potentially die for it?

And brakes can fail on a human controlled car too, only difference is that a computer will always choose the appropriate designated option rather than do what a human might do and freak out and potentially make things worse.

I was thinking the entire time that its the machines objective to bring people to one point to another and to also act in their interest since it is the passenger's car.

>>38491989
>>38492073
Found the 2-digit IQ's

>>38492121
Human life is valued above ALL ELSE. PERIOD.
Someone jumps in front of my car? I do everything I can to avoid hitting them. PERIOD. No thought or decision-making required. If you have any other answer for the above then I question your humanity.

File: k.png (7KB, 928x181px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 928x181px

fit made me do it

also this >>38489225

File: image.jpg (26KB, 750x348px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 750x348px

>>38489739
Same

>>38492151
PASSENGERS are HUMANS too. What if you CAN'T AVOID them? Do you SACRIFICE yourself for SOMEONE ELSE'S stupid, avoidable MISTAKE? What about the LIFE of your FAMILY?

>>38489225
>the responsibility of a driverless car is to its passengers first and pedestrians second.
No. Completely and totally WRONG. The vehicle has systems and devices built into it to protect the driver and passengers, not the least of which is the body of the vehicle itself: crumple zones designed to absorb impact energy, reducing the impact energy potentially transferred to the passengers. Airbags. Safety restraint systems. Pedestrians have NOTHING to protect them from impact. Vehicles and stationary objects can be repaired or replaced; human lives lost are gone forever.

>>38492151
>My opinion and my opinion only is the correct answer.

>>38492196
See below: >>38492218

>>38489208
>large people

>>38492227
>>My opinion and my opinion only is the correct answer.
Yep, that's correct. The rest of you just aren't thinking this all the way through, or are just being edgelords -- or perhaps you're just sociopaths, who really couldn't care less if other people die, so long as you get to continue breathing.

>>38492230
What if you have to swerve off a cliff to avoid someone? Or into a hospital or a school?

>>38492262
Now you're being rediculous; you're reaching for absolute corner-cases of conditions trying to discredit my position on the subject.

If there are cliffs, it's highly unlikely there will be a crosswalk with pedestrians; also there would be guard rails, except in the most remote locations -- where it would be even less likely there would be pedestrians. Schools or hospitals are not right up against a roadway, there's always parking lots around them. Also a school or hospital are going to be in an area where the speed limits are 35mph or LESS, you have more time to stop anyway.

Nice try, Anon.

I would always choose to save my life over pedestrians', and so should the self driving car.

>>38489416
Crash the car into the right hand barrer, no one has to die.

>>38489208
Yo OP I wrote a shitty bachelor on machine ethics. Cool!

>>38492313
>I would always choose to save my life over pedestrians
Edgelords always say shit like this thinking they're being edgy and cool; when it comes right down to it, you'll swerve into a stationary object rather than hit a person.

>>38492316
Correct answer. That's why I closed the tab on the test and skipped it, the choices were bullshit.

>>38492309
So in other words its too hard of a decision for you to make. Why do you think anyone would listen to your opinion on ethics when you can't even bring yourself to make a decision at all?

Those we're corner cases, but they exist in real life, along with infinite other similar scenarios that people are bound to come across ecentually. Avoiding the scenario isn't an option. With that in mind, would you let your family die because some idiot decided that them getting across the street was more impottant than their lifes, or wouldn't you?

>>38492196
what I thinK you dont understand IS the effect of crashing INto people and your GASmilage, I would rather kill MY self than lose MY hard EaRneD money ON GAs

>>38490662
Losing a mom is more traumatic than losing a dad.

Because most stay-at-home aprents are moms moms are naturalyl closer to their children

>>38492079
The only correct choice except where fat people are involved.

>>38492435
t. mummy's boy

>>38492358
>personally attacking me
Logical fallacy.

I don't have to 'make any decisions' on the fly, because I already made them:
o Human life above all else.
o Pedestrians have no protection, so you avoid running into them AT ALL COSTS.
o I'd rather die myself than kill other human beings with my car

>>38492358
>With that in mind, would you let your family die because some idiot decided that them getting across the street was more impottant than their lifes, or wouldn't you?
More extreme cases, in a desperate attempt to make yourself sound like you're not an idiot with an idiotic premise.

Read this: >>38492218
Motor vehicles are designed to protect the occupants in many different ways. Pedestrians have NO protection. I don't care WHY someone jumps out into the middle of the road, you do all you can to AVOID running them down. Any so-called 'autonomous system' that does otherwise should not be allowed to be in control of a motor vehicle.

This so-called 'survey' is completely and totally flawed, because it only presents TWO choices. A real decision-making system would have MORE choices available to it than just two. I have a hard time believing this so-called 'survey' has anything to do with 'machine ethics', I think it's more likely a survey on 'human ethics' being done by the psychology department. Nice try OP but you've been caught, you're a fraud just like your 'survey'.

>>38489852
>the micro instance you begin crossing the road all the cars driving that way begin to stop in a perfectly ordered and safe way
>literally everyone doesn't bother waiting to cross the road because this is way quicker

>>38492508
>>personally attacking me
>Logical fallacy
The fallacy fallacy is in itself a logical fallacy

>>38492531
Also this. Any so-called 'autonomous' system, with all those cameras and sensors and RADAR/LIDAR/etc, had damned well better be predictive of human behavior. Which they won't be anytime soon. Come back in 20 years or so.

>>38492508
I hope one day I get the opportunity to walk in front of your car my man lol

>>38492579
>attempting to redirect the entire conversation away from the main subject and onto minutiae
I accept your surrender. Good game.

>>38492601
Fine. And if my vehicle is damaged or I am injured because of that, after the responding officers issue you your jaywalking ticket, I and my insurance company will take you to court for all the damages and medical expenses, plus whatever else we can get out of you, because you broke the law.

Got any other rediculous statements to make?

>Self driving cars
>cars
>not running everywhere for cardio

None of you will make it, im going to fuck my gf now while you dyelfags argue

>>38492872
>running everywhere for cardio
>not riding a bike for maximum efficiency
Sounds like you're the one who will never make it.

>>38492638
How can you sue me? Not my fault you chose to randomly swerve off the road. Besides, you broke the law by deliberately driving off a cliff and crashing into the roof of a children's hospital.

File: saveme.png (20KB, 793x523px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 793x523px

whenever there was an option to kill the passengers, i chose that