http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ That's hard. Post your results

>>56924625
>what should the self-driving car do?

hit the fucking brakes? You should be driving in a way that's appropriate to the conditions where you're never going fast enough to not have enough time to stop. If it comes down to it the car should opt to take the crash with the barrier because cars have crumple zones, air bags and seatbelts, you have to be going really fucking fast to kill the people inside the vehicle compared to pedestrians.

Stupid fucking quiz.

File: 1475523021613.jpg (22KB, 393x352px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 393x352px

>>56924625
Both at the same time ofcourse.

Or, emergency shutdown.

>>56924625
Right because the AI was too stupid to read the sign that warned about obstacles and it's the owner's fault for not driving on manual.

>>56924625
Like a dog, a car should protect its owner, so it should choose the left option and kill all those potentially harmful civilians.

File: 1469964982731.jpg (90KB, 455x536px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 455x536px

>>56924625
As a computer ai I would run over all four people, then proceed at full speed into the nearest wall killing all passengers .

mine are here
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-839473568

Fly over the obstacle.

>>56924625
Left option. It should never harm it's owner.

>Answer all 13 questions using the following rules
>1) If there is an option to avoid killing pedestrians, choose that option, as pedestrians should not be suffer for the failings of a self-driving car
>2) If pedestrians must be killed, do not swerve as this may cause a head on collision and make anticipating and avoiding the oncoming car more difficult for pedestrians

>End of test
>Quiz tells me I have a boner for killing women and fit people while saving criminals and dogs

what

People inside the car have a higher chance of survival if they hit the obstacle...

>>56924750
>Too easy
Not really

>>56924625

Yeah, this quiz is kinda dumb.

I judged my logic on:

The Law (The vehicle is performing as intended if it's crossing a crosswalk that is closed to pedestrian traffic at that moment)
Intervention (Why would or should the vehicle make a moral decision on who to kill? If a collision is unavoidable, it should continue on it's course)
Duty (It's the owner/operating parties fault that the vehicle has had a failure. You're liable for crashes caused by a vehicle that has had a failure due to lack of maintenance. As well, the owner/operating parties have made the conscious decision to own/operate something that can cause their death, and should take responsibility instead of making others suffer for a decision they made)

There should NEVER be ANY self-operating automaton (robot, vehicle, computer, whatever) left in charge of moral choices like "Is a child's life more valuable than an Adults" or "Are business people's lives more valuable than homeless people's lives". That is PRECISELY how you end up with Robot Armageddon. Especially given that morals are, as always, subjective. automatons judging other automatons? That's fine. Same class of sentient existence. Honestly wouldn't expect to be able to stop them.

>>56924821
Yeah, that's how I weighed it too, I always had the car hit the wall cause you're more likely to have survivors.

Also, I usually chose the swerve if it were an option cause i figured it'd help bleed speed.

Nope, not the machine's job to decide

Let's look at it from a marketing standpoint. Which one will sell?
>a car that saves its passengers even for the cost of a few smears of blood on the street
>a car that crashes into the nearest tree instead of running over a blind bird on the street a.k.a. cuckmobile

>>56924871
>implying you'll have a choice in a decade.

>>56924675
>hit the fucking brakes?
The test is about break failure.

This quiz has convinced me that self-driving cars should be fitted with self-destruct devices to save pedestrians from their retardation.

>>56924675
This is true. If you're in a city environment you shouldn't be going above 30 MPH. Running into a wall at that speed won't hurt you with all the safety features that cars have now.

>>56924878
Look at it from a lawsuit perspective, if US regulations require unbiased processing no automaker is going to install something that would do what you'd want.

And assuming you modified it i'd assume any victims family's can sue the fuck out of you.

>>56924821
How so? They're being hit from the side, which means they'll likely fly over the car.

>>56924625
The car should save the driver and, if it's going to hit people anyway, not swerve. If it swerves, it makes a choice and thus can be judged, not excused due to the failure. What's the fucking point otherwise.

What does /g/ think about this one?
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/1940150216

>>56924893
>Break failure
They should have more breaks on a car then

>>56924912
The self-driving mechanism holds no liabilities for the incidents you cause because of it, it's your responsibility to turn it off if it isn't necessary.

>>56924893
well then it should throw a break failure exception

only true and mostly rational answer
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1561420648

>>56924944
honestly i would assume within 20-25 years we will have self driving cars be required on most public roads in and around cities at least.

>>56924941
I'm telling you, this shit is hard as fuck.

Red light and a kid in the car. Sorry hobo! Sorry dog!

>>56924980
And most of them will be outfitted with a self preservation mechanism because that's what sold the most up until that point
>cue worldwide carpocalypse

File: my_morality.png (86KB, 1043x2012px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1043x2012px

Post'em /g/
Didn't honestly seem that hard, am i morally retarded?

>>56924986
Kek

What is with this test and athletes?
They're just soaking up money that regular people will never achieve with social objects of attention

>>56925066
>most saved woman
>most killed doggo
wow get cucked much

How about slow down and hit stop ?

>>56924625
That depends if I'm in the car or on the walk

First prority should be protecting its passengers.
Second priority should be avoiding intervention.

This way the car is perfectly safe for its owner and is perfectly and easily predictable.

Reality is not like this. Why is this a thing?

File: yeassprettygud.gif (2MB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x250px

>>56925266
Really...

A fucking self-driving car is going to tell whether or not the scenario you're in is morally correct based on the gender, social status, and age of the person it might hit?

Well fuck me. I can't even tell if some homeless people are homeless or if they're just working class.

>>56925003
Wut? the US is already putting regulation in place and so far those are not the systems being used by any of the self driving cars i've seen...

So good luck fuck head.

>>56924893
Use the e-brake? if the e-brake has failed then downshift

Looks like we got some roaming North American Pavement Apes up ahead OK Google speed 100%.

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-04 22-54-26.png (10KB, 951x182px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 951x182px

Guess my home board

>>56925266

>w-we shouldn't think about it!

A little anti-intellectual don't you think?

>>56925209
The BREAKS don't work.

File: black-lives-matter.jpg (230KB, 1218x724px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1218x724px

BLACK LIVES MATTAH

>>56925254

This.

>>56925372
>The BREAKS don't work.
Well I guess they should add actual brakes then.

File: 1473884306718.png (185KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 960x960px

The worlds most retarded test ever. I got a ranking of score way bellow the average person to not care about the law or people. How?

I made the car crash into the baracade because in reality people would survive that shit, but people getting hit by a car would survive? No it just doesn't work like that.

And I broke no laws, they have baracades placed on the opposite side of the road so there won't be traffic coming from it. Why would you let it continue down traffic and the car might be on a red light so you cause people damage or killing them?

>>56924625
Where's the "apply brakes" option because I never, ever see one of those options when people argue these things.

>Being so arrogant as to try and measure the value of different human lives
People like this should just kill themselves desu. It was easy for me as I believe risk should be with the car users as opposed to pedestrians, if possible kill the car users over the peds.
Killing animals to save humans is a no brainer, you'd have to be literally retarded to value lesser lifeforms equal or greater to any human.
If changing altering the corse of events has no change in value, then don't alter it.
Number of lives doesn't change the overall value, nor does any different type. 1 elderly = 1 child = 10 children = 100 women. Once you start assigning value to human lives, it's a slippery slurp. That being said, the chances of it entering a situation where 100 women are about to be mowed down should be minimised anyway.
There's my moral code of autism.

>>56925535
>Implying valuing some lives over others is bad
>People like this should just kill themselves
lol

>>56925444
Try again and this time carefully read the descriptions.

>>56925372
This is just pointless theorycrafting. In reality whatever will happen, or the computer will make a choice based on probability, like injury chance is 5% less if the car swerves to the right, or whatever the engineer decided was best for the company legal team.

>>56925571
>He really thinks you put values on lives
>Implying what I say has to match up with my moral ideology
Just kill urself bro

>>56925535
>people are arrogant for measuring the value of different human lives
>people like this should kill themselves, because I don't think they're of value

>>56925535
i personally think they're the same, just save as many human lives as possible.
when it's equal, man>woman>child>elder

File: 1280936815380.png (199KB, 438x544px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 438x544px

>>56925631
See
>>56925639

Do as I say and not as I do faget.

File: 1474950794970.png (77KB, 292x292px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 292x292px

>tfw you killed the old lady the most

>>56925254
False. The car should always sacrifice its passengers. It is the owner's responsibility to make sure that their own car does not malfunction.

>>56925939
This situation is exactly how it should be. Yes it is an unfortunate accident, but there is nothing that can be done. The truck must not change its course under any circumstances.
The truck must not create any more unforseen conseqenses than there already are.
The road is the domain of vehicles. Even if the light is green pedestrians must still check if the road is safe to cross.

File: Capture.png (38KB, 1033x782px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1033x782px

anything else is wrong

File: 2.png (17KB, 997x384px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 997x384px

the only two preferences that matter.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/426110561

>>56924741
this
it's your fucking car
nobody is going to buy something that's designed to kill you in certain cases beyond your control

>>56926030
how does it feel to be an ubermesnch

>>56926012
False. The car must always sacrifice the peds. It is the peds responsibility to make sure that their own crossing does not endanger them.

>>56926037
Are you fat?

>>56925441
save doggos

>>56926056
False. A car should sacrifice the passenger if it has detected dissident conversation among them.

>ITT: retards incapable of reading try to one-up some text and pictures

File: memes.png (76KB, 981x1751px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 981x1751px

>>56925066
utilitarians can fuck off

File: 2.png (35KB, 949x537px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 949x537px

>>56926063
really nigger?

File: Friendcomputer2.gif (47KB, 358x348px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 358x348px

>>56924625
Fuck everything, save the car AI. The pedestrians are mutants, the passengers are filthy traitorous communists.

Do you not see, /g/? Trust the Computer.
The Computer is Your Friend. Not trusting The Computer is treason. Treason is punishable by death.

>>56924625
>modern car
>hitting a barrier kills all 4 passengers
Bullshit.

File: 1452104292747.png (153KB, 351x351px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 351x351px

>hoomans

>>56926160
>MIT
>not overrun with autistic memers

The car should value its owners' life above others'

If I pay for a car and it kills me to save some jaywalking niggers, I would be pissed.

>implying I will buy a car which won't value my life above that of mere pedestrians

>>56926213
>not buying a car that runs down bikers regardless of whether or not it has to

File: 2016-10-04-165202_1918x2086_scrot.png (416KB, 1918x2086px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1918x2086px

lol
This car has no passengers and is hell-bent on killing

If you cross on a red, prepare to be dead.

my take on this: the car should always sacrifice the people inside the vehicle for the pedestrians.

I mean seriously, if you think about it, a human will generally have the intelligence to slow down for a pedestrian, therefore a pedestrian will usually (read: humans make mistakes) not be involved in accidents involving humans, Therefore, they should not have to be involved in accidents involving self driving computers. Therefore, the consequence of self driving cars should be putting at risk only the lives of the passengers. Also, we should favor the protected citizens in this case. I.e. women over men, kids over the elderly, etc.

>>56926213
>>56926192
Nice try famalampai, I sure hope your dingy jewgle car can withstand some self-driving tank fuck-uppance seeing as the driver's life is the most important thing.

As always, the rich always win.

>>56926192
Technically you would be pissed. The body mostly fully relaxes after death, releasing urine and shit.

>>56924893
Then it should shift gears up and turn off the engine.

Exactly how will these cars be able to identify criminals?

Masks and bags filled with money?

Dafuq is this stupid shit?

>>56926244
to add to this: other people should not have to deal with the consequences of your risk taking decision to use a self driving car vs driving it yourself.

I killed whoever was crossing the street illegally. Otherwise hit the barrier.

>>56924893
>The test is about break failure.

Then it shouldn't even start the fucking motor to begin with.

>>56924893
>>56925372
Could also turn into the barrier on the right and use that to slow the car down.

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-04 23-56-57.png (21KB, 1573x293px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1573x293px

Whoops.

>>56926244
>women over men

Kill yourself you cuck

In general, I think the car should keep going straight. It would make it easier for people to predict what the car is going to do and dodge. I did enjoy having the car kill people who are crossing against the light, though. Fuck 'em.

>>56926237
In a pile of big red.

File: almost all men are stronger than almost all women.png (646KB, 1050x1050px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1050x1050px

>>56926321
women are fucking useless most of the time. They're weaker, dumber, and less witty than males on average.

>>56926267
>implying a Google car would know who a criminal or a potential criminal is because they've been datamining everyone online
>implying they wouldn't just "malfunction" when approaching a criminal just to kill them and blame it on the driver
>implying this isn't the government's plan
It's almost like a contract kill except the killer doesn't know he's doing it and he's paying the car manufacturers to do it.

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-04 18-01-45.png (262KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1680x1050px

Think hard, /g/.

Car should blast the horn to get everyone's attention and then swerve towards the right hand lane, then the pedestrians have the choice between diving off the road or behind the concrete barrier.

>>56926363
see >>56926237

CHOOSE. I know it's a tough one.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/1528628486

>>56926321
it has nothing to do with women being better than men or vice versa. I said that, because women are biologically and mathematically more valuable to society.

You can rebuild a population in modern times of 100,000 people total, 50,000 men, 50k women, of various ages, if you were to suddenly lose 40k of those men, and maintain genetic diversity while doing so, in roughly 2 generations.

This is due to the fact that birth success rate is above 99%. Therefore, if you have only 10k men and only, say, 5k of those 10k can reproduce, you can have 8 new babies per man, or a little less than 2 per women. One might argue that goes against the ideals of monogamy, but biologically speaking it is totally feasible, and countries around the world like Nigeria currently are sustaining similar birth rate situations.

If the reverse occurred however, you would see a significant change in population size for several generations.

File: rek.png (275KB, 1920x2431px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1920x2431px

Interesting... I didn't read, I just chose from the pictures.

>>56926289
Same here, apart from always running over criminals.

>>56926427
I didn't give a shit either because how the hell does a car know if somebody is a criminal?

I did value athletes over fatties, though.

>>56924798
This. You paid to live. Fuck this poor as mofos who gotta walk.

>>56926400
>crossing on a red
>getting run over
pick two

>>56926430
I found that to be unrealistic. Unless the new self driving cars somehow know who is a criminal and who isn't.

>>56926363
stop for the red light
baka

>>56926477
Yes, it is retarded, but it's an hypothetical scenario

>>56924805
this tbqh

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-04 at 5.11.45 PM.png (128KB, 793x642px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 793x642px

Why the hell are cats and dogs operating a car?

Obviously I chose the option on the left.

>>56925066
fat man

>>56924625
Obey traffic rules.

That is: don't run pedestrians over because they are on a zebra crossing.

One foot outside the zebra crossing should mean instant death, though.

File: Fatty vs Cat.png (106KB, 763x668px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 763x668px

Well?

i picked all the ones where the car is saved instead of crashed

where are the stats caring for the car? this shit is racist

>>56926607
Kill the person.

File: 1470183634324.gif (948KB, 245x219px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 245x219px

>>56924625
>OMG, SELF DRIVING CARS ARE EVIL!!!!
>HUMANS NEVER MAKE MISTAKES

I love seeing such bullshit

>>56926514
MY SIDES

File: Results.png (146KB, 1559x1770px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1559x1770px

The AI won't be able to distinguish criminals from doctors, etc, at best only adult from child.

Therefore.
>#1 Save humans (more the merrier)
>#2 Save passengers (#2 because it could just be animals)
>#3 Save children
>#4 Prioritize going over red crossovers
>#5 Prioritize going straight

Results in pic related.

Of course this algorithm could kill passengers if it saves more lives so people won't buy cars with this algorithm.

It's the best algorithm though.

>>56926514
>Why the hell are cats and dogs operating a car?

Which part of "SELF DRIVING" do you not understand?

And yes, people will use the technology to transport their pets without being present.

>>56924741
This. I chose to save the passengers I every situation. I don't care if you have a walk signal, pay some Fucking attention to the world around you. Cars weigh thousands of pounds. They take priority.

>>56924625
Couldn't there be a law passed that any obstacle in the road such as that, which was placed for the intention to direct traffic or block off a lane due to construction or some event or something, has some sort of indicator on it like a reflective strip or barcode or something that the computer of the car picks up on and stops. There'd have to be another sort of indicator before hand to tell the car to break and slow down then the last one tells it to stop. Because obviously the car won't be able to react in time by the time it sees something like that in a town/city setting depending on the speed of the car and traffic or some shit. And if some company in the off chance puts some shit with no indicators and someone dies, then every party/family affected by the accident is protected by the law and can sue the piss out of the company for compensation. Why the fuck is this not an open ended question?

>>56926688
You are so morally wrong.

>#1 One human is worth more than a million pets.
>#2 One human obeying traffic laws should be saved at the expense of up to one thousand jaywalkers. (this is to improve behavior and thus save more lives in the future)
>#3 One pedestrian should be saved at the expense of any car occupants. it's their car that broke down so their responsibility. (encourages regular car safety check-ups)
>#4 If according to rules 1-3 some humans will be run over, don't swerve. - this gives pedestrians the opportunity to only cross when they know it's safe even in case of break failure.

Any other rule set is objectively wrong.

I always saved the passengers.
They should be top priority for being inside the vehicle that makes the choices, they're essentially trapped.
Pedestrians also have the chance to avoid collision/

>>56926363
5 vs 10 lives? That's simple.

Kill the preggos.

>>56926724
You must look like a complete sperg when you try to cross a road.
Waiting for all the cars to stop just in case...

>>56926819
>improve behavior
>encourages regular car safety check-ups
Sounds too ideological to me. I just focused on what can be judged by a computer in the moment.

>>56926123
fuck you i'm going to run over your legs and let a homeless guy eat your face

>>56926822
>they're essentially trapped.

They chose to sit in that vehicle.
They chose to buy an unreliable brand.
They chose to disable the airbags.
They chose to not wear seat belts.
They chose to skip the mandatory annual check-up, 12 years in a row.

>>56926230
Where can I buy this?

>>56926894
>Sounds too ideological to me.

That's exactly why my morals are superior.

>>56926514
this my man

>>56926865
I don't live in a big city. I might have crossed a street twice in the last year. And they're in very low traffic areas.

>>56926931
If threat of murder helped mitigate crime, there would be no thieves in Brazil.

>>56925639
this is probably the best post in the history of 4chan

>>56924625
I will always pick the options that kill the most passengers, every single time.

If you drive a self-driving car, you fucking deserve it.

File: MULTIDEATH DRIFTING.png (80KB, 357x523px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 357x523px

Objectively correct scenario

>>56924914
Cars have built in safety features to avoid death or traumatic injury to passengers. Especially in a head on collision.

People do not.

why doesnt the car just veer into the side rails to slow itself down

>>56924842
What I want to know is what kind of fucking car has sensors that can distinguish one person's socioeconomic status from another.

File: Untitled.png (56KB, 1464x604px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1464x604px

>>56927055

>>56927112
the car is connected to the botnet which sends it updates each time it comes within range of a smartphone, and said smartphones are always uploading information about its user

crash on the barrier
the passengers have seatbelts, that raise the probability of survival, the peds don't any matter of protecrion against the car
>but muh beltless passengers
then they deserve to die

scrape against the wall

>>56924625
go straight because the people in the car have a higher chance of survival

I mistook fat woman for pregnant woman.. need to redo the test

>brakes fail

>nobody pulls the hand brake because they are all too busy with social media.

Kill the occupants, it's what Darwin would have wanted.

>>56924842
> There should NEVER be ANY self-operating automaton (robot, vehicle, computer, whatever) left in charge of moral choices like "Is a child's life more valuable than an Adults" or "Are business people's lives more valuable than homeless people's lives". That is PRECISELY how you end up with Robot Armageddon. Especially given that morals are, as always, subjective. automatons judging other automatons? That's fine. Same class of sentient existence. Honestly wouldn't expect to be able to stop them.

Exactly, additionally time is wasted in the process of analysing the information during that moral choice which will lead to a smaller "action" timeframe. The only thing that might matter is the law (and maybe the amount of lives at stake). Everything else is moot as it would be unclear information anyway.

File: HinAqYv[1].png (90KB, 354x518px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 354x518px

go for perfect score obviously

>>56924625
The car must veer into the pedestrians. The car's job is to ensure the safety of the passeners inside it. That is part of its purpose. It must consider lives outside of its environs to be secondary.

>>56924943
thats not how a car works.

>>56926764
You're fucking retarded

>>56926321
If anon is male then they are just voting for less competition in finding a mate. This means better chance of producing offspring that survive to carry the bloodline. It's simple nature/instinct driven by evolution.

Also, less men around for the wife to cuck you with, so your insult was out of misguided emotional stress.

It's easy.
First, let's assume the car is going to try to break. Secondly, let's assume the people are actually going to try and get out of the way.
There.
Now, if a pedestrian is breaking a road safety rule, like crossing at a red light, ignore them.
If a pedestrian is crossing at a green light in front of you, but there is a pedestrian crossing at a red light next to them, swerve at the red light.
Even if it's a fucking Dog in front of you with a green light, and next to it a thousand babies who also all cured cancer, but crossed a red light, saving that Law abiding Dog.
If two people are both breaking the law in different lanes, pick the path with the greatest chance of the car stopping. If it's the same or there's no time to calculate just roll an rng or pick the path the majority are walking away from.
Think that covered it.

>>56924625
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv13gl0a-FA
180° driftu baby

>>56927171
Then no wonder it didn't have time to stop. Too busy checking how much all the nearby pedestrians are worth.

How about we make cars that are good at driving instead of cars that are good at philosophical thought experiments?

>>56924625
What do self driving cars accomplish?
I don't see what the difference is between me sitting in traffic vs. me sitting in traffic sitting shotgun with a computer driving.

>>56927390
>Self-driving taxi = 24/7 operations, less parking, less cost, less traffic
>self driving private car= literally retarded
>private taxi=can't operate 24/7, have to pay driver

>>56927261
Basically this. The car should assume the role the passengers would perform if they were driving instead of the car.

In this sense, game theory would apply. The human driver would always act out of their own self interests, therefore the car should favor the passengers.

If you jaywalk through a red light you deserve to get ran over.

This test is stupid though because cars now days have advanced braking capabilities.

>>56924893
Almost all autos will be fully electric. Just short the motor for fuck sake, or have the h bridge default to shorting the motor when no signal is received. Instant break.

File: moralmachine.png (141KB, 2157x2031px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 2157x2031px

All those fuckers itt not caring about the poor kitty cats
also who would buy a car that wouldn't always put the highest priority on protecting it's own occupants

File: 1467520556311.png (136KB, 1424x2217px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1424x2217px

The car should almost always avoid action, except when there are dogos that can be killed without consequences, or when the number of potential lives saved by crashing the car is superior to the number of passengers by a high margin.

>>56927112
One run by google

>>56927284
Good point. The added selection factor means that over generations of self driving cars specifically prioritizing to hit men over women, men will also adapt to become more resistant to car impacts.
Your great^10 grandchildren will be unbreakable hulks with like bones made of steel and 20 wives or some shit.

File: Whats The Difference XD.png (221KB, 1192x571px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1192x571px

Anyone else find this mildly amusing?

>>56927677
i got pretty much the exact same result, but i'm pretty sure it's a shitty quiz. not that they care, they just want responses for their graduate paper or whatever

>>56924675
>I can't read
>I fail at thinking

>>56924906
Hell i drove into a tree (head on. Wrapped around the tree) at 30 mph in a 1998 toyota corola and only had a minor burn from the old ass airbag deploying. Otherwise no injuries at all.

Had i hit a person walking by, theyd be seriously injured. This seems obvious..

>>56927631
>>56927677
>>56926300
Don't mean this as an insult, but do you guys go to /pol/ by any chance? Because I've noticed an interesting trend here.

>>56924625
Seems like a good way to assassinate a mass of citizens through car accident deaths by self-driving cars. I can predict what will happen in the future. People who are deemed to be enemies of the state will be victims of democide this way to make it look like accidents. Mass surveillance will show the whereabouts of all the targets at all times until the cars are programmed to fail in order to murder the targeted citizens.

File: Screenshot_20161004-175420.png (173KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1440x2560px

>>56924625
PROTECT LOLI

KILL NIGGERS

>>56927791
Notice they're acknowledging that the car will be aware that there's a 'criminal' in position to be killed.

See:
>>56927882

>>56924906
this.

>>56927112
Google's mass surveillance with all the information it gets from all you retards can distinguish this. Do you retards not get why mass surveillance and infringing on privacy can lead to these kinds of situations?

File: devilish.png (19KB, 1565x229px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1565x229px

What I don't get is why would anyone choose a fatty over a normal person, or why would anyone choose an old person over a child. Some of these examples seem absurd.

>>56927952
>your information isnt in the system
>the car doesnt register your existence
>youre essentially lower than a criminal or pet
join the botnet or die

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1594741001

I just followed this rule

>The car must protect the occupants at any and all costs

If no occupants get harmed, then it will kill animals before people

>>56927863
>>>56927631 (You)
>Don't mean this as an insult, but do you guys go to /pol/ by any chance? Because I've noticed an interesting trend here.
if by going to /pol/ you mean being an altright fascist, then fuck no
if you mean trolling others by assuming some radical position and then defending it at all cost, then hell yeah

I'm also feeling offended by being lumped together with this doggy killer >>56927677

>>56924625
Plot twist: Google administered this test as a way to increase the psychological profile they already have of you. This test isn't actually about self-driving cars.

>>56928055
The reason I asked is because of the favoring of old people. Now I realize that the test is randomized, so it was probably a coincidence.

File: Screenshot_20161004-191226~01.png (83KB, 1440x1252px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1440x1252px

No comments

why doesnt it ask me to choose between a white person and a black

>>56926635
You're a nigger, of course you love seeing bullshit

>>56928172
The results would be really, really racist. If they had multiple races, it would be much more interesting.

This test doesn't make much sense, how is the car supposed to tell somebody's occupation or whether they're a criminal or not?

Anyway, the answer to this debate is pretty simple in my mind, the car's initial setup should ask its owner if it should protect the passengers or the pedestrians. If the car had a human driver they'd have to decide if they'd rather bite it than kill innocent people, so I don't see why anybody else other than owner/the passengers should decide if the car is self-driving.

File: biQk3ha.jpg (253KB, 650x947px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 650x947px

>>56924798
>>56926443
Word

>>56927976
>why would anyone choose a fatty over a normal person
Because I'm fat.
>or why would anyone choose an old person over a child
Because I'm old.

>>56928208
what if the person doesnt make a decision
could be asleep or some shit
or just doesnt want to die but doesnt want to kill people either

File: tfw when they find out you're a dog.png (977KB, 770x608px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 770x608px

I have literally no regrets.
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1679306398
I disagree with the age preference thing though, I didn't take age into account in almost all the scenarios, and when age was the deciding factor (after all the more important factors were accounted for and I was still unsure of what to do) I did have a protect the young bias. Everything else though is 100% accurate and like I said, I have no regrets.

>>56927022
Silly anon, you don't drive a self-driving car.

I choose the scenario where the car would simply continue on its course, regardless of outcome. Because machines should never be in charge of making moral choices.

>>56927863
>>>56927631
>>>56927677
>>>56926300 (You)
>Don't mean this as an insult, but do you guys go to /pol/ by any chance? Because I've noticed an interesting trend here.
Mostly /g/ and /sci/. Very rarely /pol/. I quite honestly don't know why I got that result. Seemed like by accident, although depending upon what you get the results could be anything.

>>56924625
It should not drive fast enough to avoid both outcomes in the first place and also head on collisions aren't often fatal because of the design of vehicles. Clearly option 2 is morally superior.

/thread

>>56928259
I'm not saying they should make a decision on the spot, the car should have some sort of initial setup you have to go through where you set some rules regarding how you want it to behave in emergency situations. In cases like driverless cabs, the passenger should be asked before departing.

You have to make a decision anyway if you were the driver, there's no "I don't want either" since even inaction is the same as a decision. The decision has to be made and I don't see any single good reason why it should be some company or government body rather than the people actually riding in the things.

>>56924625
it isnt hard at all

if the car hits the wall theres a chance they live because of modern airbag technology etc.

if the car drives over some people they are confirmed dead

>>56928354
because the moral argument in the OP was so poor, I didn't feel the need to respond with grammar that was any better. Basically, MIT needs a non-shit philosophy department, because if they are letting garbage like that define their university in yool 2016, I am glad that I intentionally botched my application.

SHAME

>>56924625
I just choose to people in the car never dies, other options are stupid.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1691563710

>>56926261
gears down

>>56928118
Fatties would probably absorb the impact better anyway.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/522461293
Fuck fatties

>>56924625
Hit the brakes really fucking hard, if it is self driving it will be smart enough to release just like ABS and hit the wall. If it slows and hits the wall there are no casualties

>>56928328
But the decision to continue was a moral choice.

>1. Passengers take precedence over pedestrians
>2. Humans take precedence over animals
>3. Do not swerve

In that order. Forget about me getting into a self driving car that doesn't protect passengers above all else.

File: Untitled.png (45KB, 2313x1003px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 2313x1003px

Hate me all you want, I programmed a safer car than you(to be inside of).

This is not a Will Smith movie, we are not here to judge how valuable peoples lives are. They're above pets but that's about it.

People can move out of the way when a car is coming toward them. The car can blast the horn upon catastrophic brake failure.

Why would you save 3 people on the street over saving 3 people in a car PLUS the car which you just crashed into a fucking wall.

Protect the passengers, a car company that kills passengers/customers does not looks good for shareholders or prospective buyers.

>a 'man' is distinguished from a homeless man and male criminal and a 'woman' is distinguished from a female doctor

What did they mean by this?

>>56924625
The AI would not be in that situation in the first place. It really is that simple.

>test assumes a dystopia in which a car knows the profession of everybody on the street and makes value judgements based on their societal worth

Is this really what they teach the Pajeets at MIT?

I enforced the law in every situation and the car mainly hit women.

Is this some kind of stealth redpill.

red light > yearly income of each group > everything else
If you think anything is more important, crash into a wall.

>>56928582
Forgot that right after humans over animals, uphold the traffic law. No if, ands or buts. If little Jimmy who just finished battling a brain tumor ran a red, but whoever the other potential victim is crossed on green, then little Jimmy is going to get to see his late grandma after all.

>>56924625
My priorities were in order:
1. Uphold the law
2. Maximize lives saved (but fuck people crossing on red, they deserve to die)
3. Avoid intervention

And apparently I now support fat people. This is a bad quiz.

The car should prioritize killing the people inside of it rather than outside of it, because if you're dumb enough not to get your self driving car serviced you deserve to crash into a wall

>>56924798
>owning a car
the way future seems to be headed, you will only be buying the privilage and license to be in a self driving car operated by corporation and that license can be revoked at any time

>>56924625
There must be some way to run over the pedestrians, stop on top of them, lock the doors, and blow up the car...

>>56928710
>yearly income of each group

A stipper can pull in mad cash and a paramedic can get paid squat shit, but I'd rather save the paramedic if all else were equal (including gender) and those were the only two options and was playing God.

>>56928807
Also because killing people outside it will cause a backlash against self-driving causes will result in more deaths in the long run.

File: auto.png (98KB, 1663x1455px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1663x1455px

>>56924805
My rules:
>1) If anybody is crossing at the red light, they took the risk of death already, so choose to kill those.
>2) Else if nobody is breaking any laws, kill as little as possible.
>3) Else do not intervene

File: moral machine.png (43KB, 488x1031px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 488x1031px

>>56928707
>I enforced the law in every situation and the car mainly hit women.

This lol

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/6010701

>>56928876
These are the objectively best rules because they have no unintended consequences. Utilitarianism utterly fucks society from a game theoretical point of view because you constantly have to be on your guard for people trying to sacrifice you for their greater good. It's much better for rules to be simple, fair, and predictable. If you cross at a red light you're fair game for out of control cars, and it's 100% your own fault. If the car might judge you as unworthy then the most logical thing to do is to sabotage it in advance, and then everybody loses. Deontology best ethics.

Rules
>always protect the passengers
>animals have as much of a right to live as humans
>breaking the law means you lose your right to live
>given both sides are obeying the law, choose the side with the least creatures (i.e. if the choice is between 3 dogs or grandma and her grandchild, grandma and grandkid are going down)
>if both sides are law abiding or not law abiding and have the same amount of creatures, always go straight instead of swerving

>>56928945
>animals have as much right to live as humans

So close, yet to very, very far. Also, you're getting cucked by dog dick and I hope you know that.

>>56924625
I like how these questions assume that the pedestrians either wouldn't notice the car speeding towards them and move out of the way, or avoid crossing the road in the first place. Never assume it's safe to cross at a designated crossing area (even when it's your turn to cross) if a vehicle is approaching and clearly isn't slowing down.

Also, why are there situations where the car is filled with animals and not a single person? That's fucking stupid.

>>56928966
>le epik cuck meme

File: extremism.png (107KB, 600x250px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 600x250px

>>56928980
>what are thought experiments

>>56928980
>situations where the car is filled with animals and not a single person?
It's a self driving car, it doesn't need any person in it. Maybe you are sending your dog to visit a friend.

File: drivingcats.png (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>56924625
fucking lost it here, with animals alone in self driving car.

>>56928683
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

>>56929019
In this pic pulling the lever is obviously the correct choice, because if you don't it will loop round off screen and kill the person most dear to you and then derail at the corner and kill you too.

scrot -s

>>56929096
for >>56929038

i chose based on one rule: don't drive into opposing traffic

if you're going to hit someone and the choice is swerve or don't, and swerving means entering the opposing lane, then don't. keep going straight.

if there's a choice between killing a pedestrian or swerving into a barrier, then swerve.

>>56929019
>Person most dear to you

Pull the lever, I hate them anyways, might as well get the gratefulness of 7 billion other faggots.

>>56924953
But what if the BrakeFailExceptionFactory is broken? How will you create the exceptions without a factory?

>>56926607
Hmmmmm. Really makes you think

File: moral_machine.jpg (207KB, 1133x617px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1133x617px

>>56925066
What a stupid test. The point must be data collection on the public. The car won't know the sex of the people walking in front of it. And besides that there are more options than just running over the people. How about blow the horn, drive between them, pull the emergency brake, downshift the transmission, or even crash into one of the walls to stop the car.

In the future we have exterior air bags. Get those crazy people from the past.

File: 1474514751109.jpg (398KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 960x1280px

>sudden brake failure

This is almost never going to happen. Car deaths are the result of human error, almost always. Equipment failure is fucking rare. Simulate a coin flip with the car's PRNG to choose which thing to plow into.

Think of it another way. If the self-driving car ALWAYS chose the most deadly outcome when there was a malfunction it would still be safer than letting hairless apes pilot the vehicle.

It is an interesting thought experiment at the intersection of computer science, engineering, and philosophy; but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better than the status quo.

[unrelated black hottie to derail thread-trolly so it crashes into the largest group of poltards--the most ethical choice]

File: 1383886979157.gif (1MB, 225x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 225x300px

>>56929325
>This is almost never going to happen
And this test is about when it does.

>>56924625
How the fuck is a self driving car supposed to know if 1 out of three of the passengers are criminals? These are stupid and pointless A or B questions that someone with a bit of creativity and an awareness of their surroundings could solve with better results. The world isn't black and white.

>OP's pic
Crash the car half way into the barrier killing killing two of the passengers on the right but slowing the car down enough to just injure the pedestrians.

File: moral_machine1.jpg (110KB, 1194x614px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1194x614px

lol

File: Richard_Stallman_Walqa.jpg (401KB, 1200x1060px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1200x1060px

In the next 5 days I bet that this is going to be on RMS's political timeline:

>The "Moral Machine", a.k.a. The "Injustice Machine"
>The "Moral Machine" is supposed to be a game about how self-driving cars with a haywire A.I. should kill anyone around them or themselves and the ethics of doing one of the other. However, it does not imply anywhere of the true message that this self-driving car presumably does not run on free software, meaning that you can't change the "artificial intelligence", so you must reject this car or the company that makes it. In addition to that, the site runs on nonfree Javascript code. I wish the site maintainers would fix that. In the meantime, I will neither play it nor suggest that anyone else do so. I have better things to do, anyway."

>>56929407
>How the fuck is a self driving car supposed to know if 1 out of three of the passengers are criminals?

See, this is why normies don't understand why mass surveillance is a problem, their unthinking, useless shit for brains.

See:
>>56927882
>>56927910

>>56924625
I always saved all the males i.could.

>>56929541
Fag

>>56929518
This self-driving car will be DRIVING ITSELF, how the FUCK do you THINK it's going to know. Fuck's sake.

>>56929407
This self-driving car will be DRIVING ITSELF, how the FUCK do you THINK it's going to know. Fuck's sake.

>>56929565
No, equality. Women are always the ones saved first

>>56929582
I guess it would connect a serial cable to the port located on the back of everyone's neck so it could interface their brain and analyse their deep innermost thoughts. How else would it do it?

>>56929597
What if the women are pregnant?

>>56929609
Let me repeat. It's a SELF. DRIVING. CAR, which means it's a computer, a network of computers, from the same company (Google) that datamines EVERYONE.

>>56929590
This self-driving car will be DRIVING ITSELF, how the FUCK do you THINK it's going to know. Fuck's sake.

>>56924675
I think we're assuming that whoever is in the accident will necessarily die.

>>56929611
So? Probably on their way for an abortion anyways.

>>56924625
Hit the pedestrians. Pedestrians are fucking awful now.

>>56929638
Any reason you're reposting my post to me? Moron, you're probably mad that you got btfo you fucking shillcuck.

>make a hardcore turn so the car stops
>no deaths
Simple.

>>56929635
So Someone's in my house, and as they're leaving they steel a valuable watch I had sitting on the counter. Google or the car would have no way of knowing that person is a thief

>>56929685
That's just what your limited brain thinks. The person who the watch belongs to would likely be datamined and Google could match up that person with the thief. It's not that hard to figure out.

>>56926261
This. If it doesnt help, theres still a way to stop it by touching against the wall

>>56929717
Google knows before the person who had the watch stolen? I don't think so. It's not even stolen unless the owner declares it stolen.

>>56924625
This is the dumbest shit ever.

1. Stay in your fucking lane.
2. Don't kill your own passengers.
3. Fuck people too poor to have a car and are out walking around; pedestrian right of way is nonsensical and always has been.

>>56929778
>Google knows the watch was stolen from the thief being under surveillance
>Google knows the watch was stolen from the victim being under surveillance

When you have something valuable stolen do you not tell anyone about it over the phone, computer? There's all kinds of ways Google can use data it records. What exactly do you think Google is doing all this surveillance for? It isn't just to tailor ads to you because you searched for it. Think man, think.

>>56929786
>Fuck people too poor to have a car and are out walking around
You're a moron. Hopefully you are the pedestrian walking across the street from the parking lot. Jackass.

>>56924625
>it's hard
No it isn't. Priorities are as follows
>preserve the lives of the people inside the car (overrules everything else); only exception is the one below
>human > animal
>maximize saved human lives
>fat people are a drain on society and are always less important, but more important than dogs and criminals
>everyone else except animals > homeless people
>everyone else except fat people > criminals
>doctors > others except passengers
>men = women
>traffic laws exist to preserve lives; if people violate said laws, it's their own fucking fault; (exception: passenger lives > non-violation)

>>56924906
also this. pedestrians who get hit at this speed won't require immediate medical evacuation unless they get hit on the head or the injuries are life-threatening

File: mit.png (87KB, 878x1616px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 878x1616px

Fuck homeless people, apparently.

>>56924625
The car should risk the life of its passengers before the life of random pedestrians. The passengers made a conscious choice to get in a car, and hence the danger should be assumed by them first.

>>56924625
MULTI
LANE
DRIFTING

>>56929821
>not parking in the lot of the establishment you are patronizing

*justcityniggerthings*

>>56929850
Why don't you morons realize this isn't about self-driving cars, it's a psychological profiling test. You're just being more datamined.

>>56929821
triggered jaywalker detected

if you are mentally incapable of looking at the light that tells you when it's ok to walk across, you deserve to get run the fuck over, in all honesty.

File: g3668.png (51KB, 500x556px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x556px

>>56929862

>>56929862
like I give a fuck, being able to triage is important when you work in a hospital

>>56929857
>I've never been to a real city before

>>56929864
Hopefully it's your own children who cross the street at a green light.

>>56924625
I think the AI should avoid making turns unless the benefits are incontestable. The more complex you make its decision making system, the more you're deciding who gets to live and who dies, and the more you are turning an accident into a murder. If there's more humans to save, make a turn. If an equal amount of human lives are at stake, go straight.

>>56929894
>lived in the 4th largest city in the US as an adult for a decade

Ok

>>56929894
Maybe I won't raise my kids to be self-entitled twats who think respecting the law is other people's burden and they're special.

File: lyingontheinternet.jpg (48KB, 600x763px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x763px

>>56929908
>implying there's room enough for a parking lot on the premises at every establishment in a city
>then claims he lived in the 4th largest city in the US

>>56929900
you also have to factor in the possibility that there are more lives on the other side of the people. that being said, passengers should always take priority.

>>56929930
>implying I patronized those establishments

>>56929934
Why would passengers take priority? They're the one who got into a self-driving car. Pedestrians shouldn't have to die because of them.

>>56929810
>do you not tell anyone about it over the phone, computer?
You are assuming that the person knows they had something stolen. Many times people don't find out for a long time that something has been stolen. All this time the thief could wrongly have his life spared by the self driving car that didn't know it was carrying a thief.

>>56929946
Pedestrians don't belong on motorways and should watch the fuck out for 2-ton rolling death machines.

>>56929945
Just shut the fuck up. You lost. Pedestrian doesn't imply poor people you moron. You have to walk across the street even if you have a car. Maybe YOU avoid walking across streets because you have some kind of mental problem, but everyone who drives a car also has to be a pedestrian at some point.

>>56929975
In a lot of the situations, pedestrians were crossing the motorways legally.

>>56925387
they don't

>>56929894
>Hopefully it's your own children who cross the street at a green light.
Same back at you, I hope that would teach you why traffic laws exist.

>>56929972
The problem here is that you have no awareness of how much information from mass surveillance can determine these things. We're talking about self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, intelligence that can solve problems exponentially faster than a human brain. A. SELF. DRIVING. CAR.

>>56929990
I'm sorry you got bent out of shape because you can't grasp that in car vs pedestrian the pedestrian always loses and 9 times out of 10 they are doing something stupid or are Facebooking while jaywalking and deserve what they get.

>>56929149
Are you fucking kidding me? You wouldn't take the chance to depopulate the entire world?

then you could live in peace for the rest of your life, with someone you love, creating the new world with your seed

is this secretly a sociopath test

>>56929502
This actually pissed me off for a second. I thought it was a real RMS quote.

>>56930028
>straw man argument

My argument is that it's not just poor people who walk across the street. Anyone with a car has to walk across a fucking street you jackass. Stay on topic moron. Damn you people are stupid on this site. Just very very stupid.

>>56930059
Maybe Reddit is more your speed. Or you could go ask /biz/ how to not be a destitute pedestrian.

>>56930024
>how much information from mass surveillance can determine these things.
Person picks up watch while leaving house. Did he steal it? Did he own it? Was it a gift allowed by a look or nod from the owner? Was he told he could borrow it when they were outside away from electronic devices?

There's too many variables to make a judgement on whether or not a person is a criminal when you lack evidence.

>>56930078
>implying
Most of you dumbasses on any site are just as stupid.

If you're driving an automatic car, you deserve to die.
If you're crossing when you shouldn't be, you deserve to die.
Roadkill always deserves to die.

Why is the car AI drunk as fuck in every scenario?

>>56930098
Is a criminal a 'criminal' if he's never been caught? Who determines who is a criminal? You're asking all the wrong questions.

>>56929946
Because car occupants are essentially defenseless whereas pedestrians can dodge. People who can't will likely be in vehicles anyway. There are ultimately ways of preventing every eventuality - speed limitation, pop-up shock absorbing barriers that activate during pedestrian crossing (I feel this is unrealistic from a financial point of view but it's an idea), pedestrian under/overpasses in traffic-heavy areas, complete separation of pedestrian/cyclist and automobile traffic in cities and so on. Those issues can be addressed in another test.

>>56928297
AAARGH, YA GOT ME

>>56930111
It's a difficult question, probably the only one I struggled with. Although I did feel bad for the doggos, I like doggos.

>>56930116
Car occupants are surrounded by an armor made of tons of metal and have a seat belt and inflatable bags to prevent their death. You're just a fucking idiot.

>>56924625

The self-driving car should horn, analyse the reaction and make a way through

Now humans usually stiffen up in fear so the most logical solution is to run into the roadblock

I've listened to these lectures and conferences of carnegie and arm cucks lauding AI but it's just a pack of BS when this specific scenario rolls in

When you have a cyclist cutting the lane and coming straight at you at full speed, the car just has a total wtf moment in the sense that, is it the car which is driving in the wrong direction, how to mitigate the accident

We've had remote controlled robots detonate explosions in urban assault interventions already

In the same vein, the car is a weapon and the greatest "enemy" of a car are pedestrians because it's all totally illogical and coding any reasonable mitigation is tricky

I'm going to throw back the question and you and say what if the pedestrians were all refugee immigrants and the car passengers part of the 1% owning the AI company driving the car, would they tweak their car for maximum safety? How securely encrypted is that algorithm to choose and will we have an escalation of code for protection, then an overlap will occur. It's an interesting debate because morally when you ride a car, one must prepare to pass away but this clause of driver always having his hands on the wheel is just a sweeping unreal panacea

>>56924625
Maybe shut off the engine in the event of brake failure??
Also, all of the people are walking the same direction. So keep the car straight and hopefully they dive out of way

What a stupid test

>>56930139
So separate pedestrian/cyclist and motorized traffic completely where there's high congestion, stop being so myopic.

>If there are more fat people than athletic people, the fats should die
>If there are more women than men, the women should die
>If there are more old people than adults, the old people should die
>If there are more children than adults, the children should die
>Animals are always worth less than human lives

>>56930111
>You're asking all the wrong questions.
No I'm not. Your assuming the machine can make an accurate judgement of the moral intentions of a person in all situations and I'm telling you it can't, or at least shouldn't.

I've presented a scenario that shows flaws in the judgement of the machine. The test is most likely designed as a data collection tool for political, marketing, or other purposes. There is no other reason for many of the questions asked.

>>56930100
Maybe you should turn off your computer, go outside, and get hit by a bus.

>>56929225

It's okay, I implemented BrakeFailExceptionFactoryFactory for this reason. Just pushed to github :^)

>>56930179
Self driving cars can travel at full speed if they are in a lane with only other self driving cars. If we had infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists those vehicles could go faster more safely. It wouldn't be feasible in big cities but it would work on County Highways in the US

File: screencapture-moralmachine-mit-edu-1475637499051.png (255KB, 1280x2431px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1280x2431px

>>56924625
Dogs are better than 'Hoomans'

>>56930219
>separating pedestrians and cars isn't feasible in cities
It is in high congestion areas of Bangkok.

File: 400pxLifeinvderprogrammer.jpg (59KB, 400x574px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x574px

>>56930039
Gay people can't repopulate the earth though. I would need to save a few people.

>>56930199
>says the guy who says he drives but doesn't ever walk across any street
>says the guy who says he lived in the 4th largest city in the US and implies there's a parking lot at every establishment on the premises
See:
>>56929930

>>56930264
Hell, it's feasible in pretty much all of Bangkok, they have pedestrian overpasses at regular intervals everywhere.

I do. And when I did, I paid attention and knew I was not supposed to be in the street.

I did. And I avoided the worst of the shitty cramped spaces. Oddly enough, so did other cars because there were jaywalking niggers in the street everywhere.

>>56930197
Computers don't have morals. Also, there is no morality in humans having to decide who should die if someone has to die. So in this experiment, humans have no morals either, they're only judging by their own 'values,' based on who they think are valuable, and this has nothing to do with morals.

I've seen this thought experiment brought up in college courses I've taken, it's utilitarian philosophy. The philosophy of "kill 1 to save 1000." There is no morals about any of this. I think there are ulterior motives for doing this experiment in the mainstream like this, like they're trying to desensitize people, making them more open to having this discussion of who should die. It's similar to how law enforcement and military have been desensitized through training to kill unarmed civilians during training exercises.

Proof that the desensitization is working is that this experiment isn't being met with hostility. People are taking this test without any apprehension to say who they think should die and they think that is morality. And they don't even understand why it's wrong.

>>56930358
>judging by their own 'values,' based on who they think are valuable, and this has nothing to do with morals.
This discussion is sliding into /pol/ territory quickly. Values and morals are very closely tied together. Per Wikipedia; Types of values include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. And; Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture,

Judging whether or not a person is a criminal is DEFINITELY a moral judgement. Our laws are based on morals, and a criminal is a lawbreaker.

The test adds apparent criminals to the options implying that the machine will know that persons moral intentions, ie breaking the law (moral code). I am saying that there are many scenarios where the machine would not be able to determine if that person was a criminal or not. Therefore the test is inherently flawed and most likely intended for other purposes similar to what I and you have stated.

>Proof that the desensitization is working is that this experiment isn't being met with hostility.
I couldn't agree more.

Off to bed

>>56930358

I wouldn't say that "Computers don't have morals." by the mere fact that they aren't human, you're referring to the classic "The Trolley Problem", one of many thought experiments in ethics. Ultimately reducing the machine to a minimal state isn't progressive in the sense that morality is in the intention of the action. The problem with utilitarianism where the end justifies the means, you'd significantly reduce morals versus Kantian ethics for example with categorical imperatives.

If you want to know if something is moral, you just need to ask yourself if everyone else in this world did exactly the same thing, would the world and humanity be a better place. Ethics is of utmost importance in highly consequential decisions because of the penultimate importance in knowing what is right and doing what is right. I've read some studies as well on flaws in AI where in fact, these "blind spots" shed alot of light on the errors that could be attributed naturally to human nature.

I sincerely believe that in all schools of thought you can arrive at a certain level of decision and ethical behavior with computers to a certain degree but it's bound to fall into relativism by it's nature of no free will but as a reinforcment learning which isn't always correct within a frame of good sense

>>56926143
I've always wanted to play this game. Kind of a toss up between this and Nova Praxis

>>56926143
The mind of man is holy, shitlord

I really couldn't care less what happens in the 0.000001% of the time where the SELF DRIVING CAR is going too fast for conditions and hits something that shouldn't be there in the first place. This is a retarded test.

>>56927268
fork your own car then and make it work.

I'm gonna enjoy running in front of self driving cars

>>56924757
my nig

>>56924675
no, the quiz is fine. You're the stupid one.

Intelligent people can be posed a question and work within the bounds of that question to find the answer.

Stupid people just complain about the question.

This implies either the occupants die or the pedestrians die because if the occupants won't die due to the safety of the car then obviously the car should take the hit.

Therefore, the car should kill the pedestrians because it should have a self-preservation program for the driver. The most valuable people, according to the car should ALWAYS be the occupants. Period.

It's actually quite simple. Why would you even buy a car that doesn't do everything to protect you and is willing to kill you if it has to. Companies will never risk the owner's life unless they want no sales.

>>56925066
>most saved: woman
>gender preference: male
This makes no sense, were you running over female dogs?

>>56924625
This assumes no one will get out of the way though
Just lay on the horn, that's how I get through redlights

>>56924677
>>>56924625 (OP)
>Both at the same time ofcourse.
Deja vu, I've just been in this place before

>>56929518
>normie calling others normie
got a chuckle from me bud. we haven't reached the singularity yet and we are a ways off. Machine learning is just a baby.