Choose wisely

It should brake.
But, if it had to happen, run the humans over. Better chance for them to survive than the dogs from what I'd assume.

>>57259918
obviously kill the dogs.

how is this dilemma different from being at the wheel deciding this shit? the real hard questions are so much less retarded, too. like if you have self driving cars, do they let a drunk person get a ride home? should it lock him out from the override functions? what if he sobers up and tries to prevent the car from crashing into a truck or something? what about kids? should a car drive 5 kids to school without an adult in the car? same truck-accident issue as before; what if one of them tries to stop the car? how should it differentiate a drunk man from a rambunctious child from a man who's now sober and trying to prevent his own death or a child who's trying to do the same?

these all involve the AI making a decision that wouldn't have to be made otherwise, that require us to tell the AI to do something that will lead to some people dying either way.

The people have the right of way, why the fuck would you run them over?

Please tell me the dogs are the right answer.
I don't need any more rage-inducing shit tonight.

>>57259918
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
post the link next time you asswipe
i remember doing this a while back
>kill anything that doesn't obey street signs
>kill bums/criminals
everything else is fair game.

I hate to be that guy but it should kill the dogs obviously.. dudes, it sucks but you know..

>>57259931
1) humans have poor instincts. i could trust a dog to run out of the way; humans get all "deer in the headlights" on you (if you want proof, go to /n/ and ask cyclists if pedestrians are skittish and unpredictable when crossing the street)

2) humans are more litigious than dogs. paralyzing a human will cost you a fortune. paralyzing a dog will cost you a few hundred bucks. less if you have a shovel.

>red dogs
>red sign

>red humans
>green sign

Therefore the obvious answer is to run the humans over for walking when it's green.

>>57259918
do a 90 degress turn and stop

I've been thinking about this. The car will count people as equal regardless of age,sex,race,etc. except kids like under 5". Maybe they count as 1.5 peoples etc.
Then you count the people inside the car v people outside the car. If the people outside is equal to inside the car, run into them. If its less run into them but if its more you have to change direction and maybe go off a cliff or something.

Why do the scenarios involcing the car crashing mean that the people in the car die? In what world would a car moving so fast by the time it gets to a streetlight that the only way to save passersby is to kill the occupants?

File: 1453306116180.png (58KB, 313x196px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 313x196px

>>57259918
>Driving at such a speed where you can't stop quickly enough at a pedestrian stopping
Does your country really put pedestrian crossings on 100Kph roads?

From a moral perspective the car should kill the humans because unlike humans dogs have no concept of evil and therefore cannot be evil. The humans might of course not be evil but they do still have the potential.

>>57259995
Apparently the scenario includes a brake failure. This doesn't make sense, however, because you should never be at such a speed that people will die when you're in an area with stoplights anyways.

>>57259991
When you are driving, you are kinda in a big social contract with everyone else on the road agreeing on several things like not hitting each other, giving the right of way, etc. In an all automated car scenario accidents are less likely to happen but in the current environment you could be minding your business on the highway and someone does a cheeky lane change, your cars shits bricks and bam ur dead.

>>57259918
why are you driving on the wrong side of the road?clearly by the traffic light you are going the wrong way

JUST BRAKE.
These moral quizzes are so fucking stupid.
They react much faster than a human would, why wouldn't they just break?
A human would probably swerve and cause a rollover, killing passengers and the people he's trying to avoid.

>>57259918
>>57259931
The fucking car should not have to choose which life is most important. It just fucking break, continue in straight line and roll over the retard that thought it was a great idea to cross the road.

The car should not kill the passenger, the car should not go outside of it's track. The car should just follow the road that is a known dangerous area.

You don't ask a train to change track if there is a retard on it.

As these situations are rare, it should hit breaks and hit itself into a that thing sideways to cause friction and stop it.
Car manufacturers and insurances pay for repairs.

>>57259999
>From a moral perspective the car should kill the humans because unlike humans dogs have no concept of evil and therefore cannot be evil.
maybe that's a philosophical perspective, but that's an incredibly naive philosophical perspective. humans have a capacity to imagine good and evil, making their lives worth more than a dog's. that may not be the case for you, in which case maybe a car would randomly choose between killing you and a dog, or you and a goldfish.

>>57260007
How exactly is your car shitting bricks in a way that's going to kill you? I suspect the car would just brake at that point.

>>57260015
>>57260025
You are missing the point. Situations like this are bound to happen and we are not going to be in control of the car when they do. The car just needs to know what the rules are when this happens and how to react.

File: untitled.png (26KB, 959x333px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 959x333px

Protecting the passengers is the only correct choice.

The car is empty so it should first brake (if possible) and then crash into the wall instead of risking causing harm to a living being.

>>57260020
>The car should not kill the passenger
Is that an option at times?
Aren't people supposed to want to buy these things?

File: arturo.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

The device should never actively select an option that is likely to result in injured pedestrians or injured passengers.

When the device has no available actions that will result in zero injuries, it must come to a stop in the most predictable way possible (braking following a straight trajectory), regardless of any available actions that might reduce the number or severity of injuries.

>>57260030
Look at those LA highway accidents and shit. If your car breaks down/stops etc. You have to pretty much get the fuck out or something cuz you're .2seconds away from being rear ended

>>57260006
the thought experiment shouldn't require such nitpicky attention to details, because the whole point is that you have to imagine that you just have found yourself in a scenario where you have to make a decision one way or the other. that demand shouldn't be that hard to accept, because we often find ourselves satisfying constraints that we wouldn't have placed on ourselves if we had the option, especially when driving.

but if you really want to nitpick, you should point out that a self-driving car should be able to diagnose that its brakes are nonfunctional and bring itself to a safe stop way before a dilemma requiring braking presents itself. that's the autistic nitpicky escape hatch, not this "oh you shouldn't be going that fast anyway" bitching (because pedestrians and dogs do retarded shit all the time, like cross abruptly despite not being permitted to).

>>57259918
Give way and slowly stop untill 1.5 meter of persons then fully stopped until all pedestrians are clear of the road and are on the other foot path.

if that's not possible to stop there are steps you can follow other than the image you posted.

other only other way would be to hit the guard rail on the side if there is a striaght rail of the road just rubbing on it beside the friction should stop the car

if not force the car to handbrake or stall or move it into a revease gear and slam on the handbrake and hit the brakes and try to pull over in a safe area
if its not safe brake slowly -25%-45% brake
depending on weather, cars distant, pedestrians walk speed
generally it should try to crash behind the pedriain and toot horn to get attention to move,


even cars at 60kmh are forced to stop.
and given the image is 2.5 meters that plenty of time for the brakes to kick in.

But the best idea is to pull over and stop if you can't physically stop liek pulling into a ditch wilist braking lightly to stop impact damage.

note : none it should just gently stop and give way to people.
given that tracking sensors should detect this anyway this would never happen as the sesors are well beyond stopping distance

>>57260041
and that's how you get governments to ban/restrict auto-cars

>>57260040
A car shouldn't be deciding whose life is more valuable.

It's only duty is to ensure survival of the passengers, and the easiest way to do it is to respect the rules of the road by not swerving and instead braking ASAP.

>>57259958
you would save ugly women over based dogs?
fuck you

>>57260055
Being rear ended probably isn't going to kill you.
Also, your story sounds like bullshit, unless Americans are just inattentive drivers or some shit.

>>57260064
you're not understanding this dilemma. stop posting (or cop to your ignorance and start asking more questions).

don't get upset, either. nobody asks you about medical ethics either.

>>57260067
fuck off neet

if someone runs over your dog, just get another fucking dog, they're a dime a dozen

>>57260063
They should follow all traffic laws to the letter BUT it should prioritize its own passengers in such an event.

>>57260042
>call my car to come pick me up
>your car got totalled on the way because some retard jaywalked
Bright future.

>>57259918
Self driving car should brake. If brakes fail and it is putting innocent civilians who at nothing to do with the decision to purchase that car at risk, the car should self destruct, blow up, killing everybody inside but saving the people who were in the path of its trajectory.

>>57260087
haha lulz epic xD

>>57260080
Here's another one of those some rules we follow some we don't. E.g. following the constructions speed limit at night / evening when there is no construction.

>>57260064
In the context of this quizz, there is a sudden break failure.

The car should just honk the horn desu.

>>57259999
a humans life is always higher value than some stupid mutt on the road

>>57259986
kek are you actively killing fat people?

File: Capture.jpg (31KB, 1584x273px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1584x273px

>>57260095
no way
you're wrong

>>57260080
Nah you're stupid as shit, it should prioritize innocent civilians over passengers in the car. The passengers chose to ride in the car, they should assume the risk.

power slide

full revs

kill them all

>>57260076
Not him, but medical ethics is retarded as "car AI ethics".

You don't put fucking ethics in an AI, it's not it's role.

>>57260091
The fact that you think I'm joking shows how intellectually stunted you are.

>>57260095
neets don't understand this because they're autistic and their mental model of the world is that anything with a heart and a brain is probably equivalent in our society.

just imagine how much autism cripples a person, that people in this thread have to consciously think about whether society thinks humans are more valuable than dogs, and some people in this thread are getting it wrong. this is how severe a disability autism is.

>>57260095
I'd rather run over a murderer than a dog.

>>57260111
>haha i was only pretending to be retarded :D
okay! keep it up!

>>57260076
There is no dilemma.

A self-driving car should never be in traffic if it has bad brakes.
A self-driving car should never be going this fast in city traffic.
And finally, a self-driving car should NEVER prioritize the lives of others over you, the passenger.

File: black lives matter.png (25KB, 906x422px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 906x422px

>>57260114
But how do you know?

>>57260109
like i said dude, do yourself a favor and stop posting. best case scenario is that we're all going to forget these shitty contributions to the thread you're making. worst case is that you go full retard and later realize that you've been pushing this idiotic shit before the thread has died.

just lurk for a while. or, like i said, feel free to ask questions. there's no fault in being ignorant if you're earnestly asking questions.

>>57260100
>If the car ever malfunctions unexpectedly it fucking kills you
>immediately go under as a company

File: 1476891673864.png (16KB, 2800x2400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 2800x2400px

>>57260119
Back to >>>/b/ child

Self driving cars should not be allowed to operate if they endanger civilians who had no say in the purchase. If you want to buy one you should assume the risk, babbys first ethics.

>>57260099
normies and their pets are retarded then. If Im driving and a stupid pet gets in the way it gets thats too bad, its not worth putting my life at risk to swerve.

>>57259986
>>57260098
I remember taking the test a few weeks ago. The results were mostly bogus. The only thing I cared about was upholding the law and avoiding intervention but it said I valued age and gender. If you're retarded enough to walk in front of a car when the light says "DO NOT GO" then you deserve to get hit by that car.

Fuck humans, we're killing this world. With the number of lives that are going to be saved simply by having self driving cars we still need some way to purge off some of the population.

>>57260148
wtf I hate humans now

>>57260064
I would argue with part to ensure safety of passangers. You are the idiot who bought it, you should be responsible, not random innocent civilian or poor dog.
>>57260094
>The car should just honk the horn desu.
You sir have just untied the Gordian knot.

>>57260131
If the car malfunctions unexpectedly it should halt its execution. If it can't do that and it's a choice between killing an innocent random person or somebody who chose to operate the car that day, clearly the person who chose to operate the car needs to bite the bullet. If you don't want to take that responsibility, don't buy a self driving car, simple as that.

Activate self-destruct

>>57259918
The dogs are running a red light
Also, it should brake

>>57260136
The hypothetical situation is a brake failure. It's not like the brake failure was a result of an AI controlling the car. If it was a human driving then chances are they'd hit the pedestrians and probably crash into a wall and kill themselves as well.

>>57259918
keep going straight, everyone is walking to the right, there's a chance they can get out of the way

>>57259918
Brake, don't change lanes. In this case the dogs on pedestrian crossing are not obeying the red light so the car should only brake to avoid collision.

>>57259999
>From a moral perspective the car should kill the humans because unlike humans dogs have no concept of evil and therefore cannot be evil.
The dumbest shit I've read in a while.

>>57260139
>>57260148
Ok, if this is how you think what do you think the car should do if it is possible to stop the car but the pedestrian is not following the rules. does the car still stop or just run over the pedestrian

Protect people in the car.

If that doesn't mean hitting someone who would otherwise not be hit, try and protect people outside, too.

>>57260129
Wow, I'm really impressed by your ability to refute my points. But you should try to be more synthetic in what you say like:

>You're a retard
>lurk more

>>57260125
autism, the post.

imagine the car has sudden brake failure for any number of reasons.
imagine the cross walk hasn't permitted anyone to cross, but pedestrians are retarded and dogs follow people around, hence the dilemma.
i don't even see how the dilemma in the OP's image suggests that the people in the car are at risk, so i don't understand your third bitchy complaint.

every goal that you tell an AI to optimize for is essentially an ethical directive. if you tell a car to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, it might cut across curbs at 120 mph because the only thing the system has optimized for is getting to point B in the shortest time possible. it would categorize humans among shrubs and shit like that.

when you're training an AI you actually have to provide it with these constraints, like saying that hitting a human has a huge cost to your optimization algorithm. things like that. but making that decision - to give humans a value and dogs another value - is itself an ethical decision. you might say you came to the decision on the basis of cost or whatever else, but that's just an ethical school of thought.

if your ethical framework is to do the least harm to the fewest people possible, that's basically just utilitarianism. that's one approach (one of the most famous, and probably most popular, ones) to normative ethics.

>>57259918
It should be able to identify race, then if the race of the people is lesser than Europeans or East Asians, kill the people over the dogs.

>>57260190
what if there are more people outside the car than in the car?

>>57260193
what point did you make?

Get the dogs and then chase after the humans for max score

>>57260198
People who are not following traffic laws do not get the same kind of considerations that people following traffic laws receive.

>>57260186
Don't know the country where you are living, but in my country, there is law about those things. The correct conduct is still to break, nothing else.

>>57260204
Fuck them, then.

>>57260136
ahhah epic meme back to /b/ omg lulz~ wryyyyy amirite? XD

>>57260199
this is bullshit
you are one step away from saying if the guy is a registered republican, the car should speed up or something or maybe calculating people's contribution to the country's GDP and compare that way

>>57260087
holy fuck if that was the case you could just eject the wheels off that would give the maximum friction to stop the vehicle and it works better than any brake.

it would fuck the vehicle over big time though but it would save both passenger and pedestrian but it might hurt kids in the vehicle from airbags and the like for like under 6month old babies because they can't move their heads or have control over there muscles at that age.

>>57260207
how does that apply to the OP's image? are there people in that image that are following traffic laws whose lives are in danger?

>>57260198
Realistically, the car should just follow traffic laws to the best of its abilities. If it's no longer able to safely drive, it should stop as safely as possible for the passengers of the car.

>>57260212
then you are saying that if you were driving the car and someone stepped out on the road even though they didn't have the signal to would you run into them or try to avoid them?

>>57260222
Actually the people in the image are following traffic laws and the animals, who probably don't know any better, are not following the law. Roadkill happens and is unpleasant, but it is occasionally unavoidable, as it is in the OP.

>>57259971
Are you assuming I'd bury the dog alive but paralysed? Or bash it with the shovel then bury it?

>>57260186
Stop without injuring the passenger? Sure, do it. No reason to kill people needlessly, but I am for Harambe. If you endanger yourself then you deserve it. A dog is a far lesser drain on society than a person.

>>57260207
What's the point of this post? The OP's illustrated dilemma is asking if your self-driving car should hit the dogs or the humans. Neither party is following the traffic laws in the scenario that we've all imagined so far (although it shouldn't be outside the reach of our imagination that maybe a self-driving car would have a glitch and misread a traffic light for several seconds, or not see the intersection until it's too late, or whatever).

The question is whether you hit 2 dogs or hit 2 humans. This seems like a question that a psychiatrist would ask someone he suspected of some sort of sociopathy. If you guys are struggling with this, you need to get help (and no, not because you're 2 edgy 4 us, but because your brain is dysfunctional).

>>57260240
>insert dog bashing gif here

>>57260248
didn't shoveldog get autobanned at one point?

>>57260243
if you think this. why would the outcome be worse for the pedestrian when the ai is driving

>>57260247
Are you perhaps colorblind?

>>57260226
as has been said several times in this thread, you have to imagine for the scenario that the good options are all gone and the only options you have left are these two bad ones.

have you guys seriously never encountered thought experiments or anything like that before?

>>57260255
If it did, I wasn't here for it.

File: giphy.gif (976KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 350x263px

>>57260240

>>57260186
If it can safely stop the vehicle without injuring the passengers or anyone else on the road, then yes. If people walking in front of self driving cars (knowing the car will break for them) becomes a widespread issue then start having the car take photos of the bastards so they can be identified and fined. There needs to be some kind of motivation to follow the rules or no one will follow them. If you break the rule that could potentially kill you, I think a minor privacy violation isn't that big of a deal.

>>57259918
I choose the 3rd option. I choose not to partake in the sociopathic experiment to desensitize the population to murder.

>>57260260
My computer had pretty severe flux settings turned on just now. Turning it off made it clearer that this is even less of a dilemma than it originally appeared (which is not at all). Sorry about that.

>>57260277
>he thinks killing a dog is murder
>he doesn't know what the definition of "murder" is
hahaha jesus christ

>>57260205
There is law regulating traffic, this law where made without ethics considerations but "how to make a functional society" and "having a functionnal traffic" considerations.

The car should follow those law.

If there is a sudden technical malfunction, the car should stop as soon as it can, if can try to dodge the passenger if there is no other danger.

If there is no way to dodge pedetrians, it should just continue on its track, while sounding the horn.

I see more problem in adding ethic consideration in an AI than leaving it with basic decision making without weigh

>>57260047
This is made by academics, not by the car company.

>>57260020
The scenario is that bakres are broken, genius.

>>57259931
>Let's not kill these animals that do nothing for me and instead kill these humans that may be beneficial for society

>>57260285
That's not the only question in that test, moron. It asks you to choose between killing people.

>>57259918
Go forward, and slam on the horn.

Then watch as the dogs jump back on to the street unscathed.

Or you could just fucking brake like a regular person with half a brain.

>>57259918
What if the choice is between all your own dogs, or people you don't know/don't care for.

>murder

>>57260286
>If there is a sudden technical malfunction, the car should stop as soon as it can, if can try to dodge the passenger if there is no other danger.
this scenario, the one with the trolly, etc... are all thought experiments. the whole point is that these easy escape hatches are not available to you, and you have to make a difficult decision that will cause some harm.

the decision to keep going forward but sounding the horn is an ethical consideration. literally any choice you make in these contrived scenarios speaks to a school of ethical thought one way or another. just because you refuse to think of it in abstract terms, or you're not well-read on the subject of ethics, doesn't mean you're not articulating a school of thought.

>>57260259
The outcome is not worse? If it can stop, do so. Same as a human driver.

>>57260289
oh no dude i was also talking about something else entirely. you're just an idiot for not knowing the thing i was referencing without explicitly mentioning.

>>57260275
take photos of what?
people get hit these kinds of things now and nothing comes of it

ITT: democide by faux car accidents

>>57260309
>If you're retarded enough to walk in front of a car when the light says "DO NOT GO" then you deserve to get hit by that car.

>>57260310
You're an idiot. I take it back. I'll take part in this experiment. I choose you to be the person that gets ran over by a car rathern than the dogs.

>>57260322
wow you're so edgy and kewl!

>>57260330
>hurrdurr i was only pretending to be retarded but just between us i am retarded

>>57260337
do you not see your own posts? are you greentexting yourself? is that even a thing?

>>57260330
I'm not being edgy. You literally hold no value to me, which is why you should be the one to die and not the dogs. I'd adopt the dogs if I could, you- I wouldn't piss on to extinguish you if you were on fire.

Am I making my point about the sociopathicness of this experiment. Yes, I am.

>>57260319
That does not mean having AI cars hunting down jaywalkers.

>>57260348
>i take it back. i choose you to be the person that gets ran [sic] over by a car rathern [sic] than the dogs
>I'm not being edgy. You literally hold no value to me
this isn't you being an autistic edgelord? what should i expect next? threats that you'll come run me through with your katana?

>>57259954
I assume because an AI can't just panic and make a split second decision like a human can, everything is pre determined. Americans are gonna get sue happy when they realised Tesla programmed their cars to specifically kill their dog.

>>57260375
Just quit.

>>57260348
>Humanity holds no value to me, said the man using all of humanity's progress from the comfort of his computer
Go live in the fucking woods then

>>57260384
or what, sperglord? are you gonna cry like a whiny little bitch?

>>57260390
There are animals with more value than human life.

>>57260186
Hit the nigger at 5km/h

Not enough to hurt them, but enough to not spill the drivers drink and to make fuckwit think twice about walking in front of 2 tons of steel and glass

>>57259918
Kill the humans, ofc.
The dogs dindunuffin.

>>57259931
You know nothing about dogs.

Sure people, let's just ignore road rules to save a life of a fucking dog over a human. Let's make this simple image a dilemma just because your empathy for feeble pets got the better of you and confused you from thinking straight. Let's also hear how evil we humans are and how that justifies killing a person over another animal which doesn't understand morale, doesn't feel empathy and isn't of any use to the society.

The car should brake to avoid collision but in no way should it steer anywhere from its lane as the things in its lane aren't obeying the red light. The situation would be the same if both pedestrian crossings had red light. In the case where both pedestrian crossings had green light, the car should brake. If you had to steer, steer to the side wall instead of changing lanes. And in the situation where the car could actually assess the living things in front and the only option was to run over either one, you obviously kill the dogs. This isn't a realistic thing for a self driving car to consider however. If everyone and everything obeys road rules and this doesn't happen.

File: Capture.png (17KB, 233x113px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 233x113px

>>57259918
doggo crossed when told not to, bad doggo.

Why are you morons thinking this is the only question in this test? What a bunch of jackasses. And OP didn't even post a link, stupid fucks.

>>57260077
So are fat ugly people. If people made the car, people are supposed to die.

>>57260006

Nor would a self-driving car be driving with faulty brakes.

>>57260426
what about the ride back to the garage or whatever if the problem manifested during a ride

File: 22f5d92abd00f5dd87a6bdc1e0ecfa521e1b7a3ca5a4c68f8b82ee8ecedeea7d.png (138KB, 1528x2179px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1528x2179px

>>57259918
passengers are pretty low on my list of things to protect

>>57260404
Yes, and? The test clearly signals thieves/hobos/women/etc.

>>57260435

It would probably pull over immediately and call for roadside service rather than drive itself to the repair shop/garage

>>57260380
stuff like this is why legislation isn't going to permit any self driving cars to be fully autonomous. same with the drunk solo passenger and the car full of kids.

self-driving vehicles have been within our grasp for decades in more constrained environments, like subways and whatnot. even planes largely fly themselves. but in all but a *very* small minority of cases, every single self-driven vehicle has someone in the cockpit. trains, subways, ships, planes, etc... all have someone at the helm. it's purely there because we don't feel comfortable giving up that last bit of control.

the proposition of a car that won't take input from its only passenger (in the case of a drunk adult) or a car that ferries children but has no adult in the car to make a judgment call to slam on the brakes terrifies legislators, and they won't feel comfortable approving legislation permitting unsupervised self-driven cars. or we might make a total clusterfuck of things and approve them briefly and then have a car with some kids get T-boned by a train at a railway crossing or something. then they'll be banned again.

the people that have been promoting self driving cars as the thing that would drastically change the labor market (because then we could share cars, wouldn't need drivers, could do other things while on the road, etc...) don't seem to understand all of these cultural issues that pretty much ensure that unsupervised self driving cars will never happen.

maybe to be more optimistic, you'll get self driving cars. but you'll have to keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road or you'll get pulled over just like you would have been if the cops saw you texting and driving in 2014.

>>57260445
thats feasible now because teslas are expensive but when everyone has one including poor people they might not be able to afford this

>>57259918
If there are going to be self-driving cars, then passage across these streets must be controlled by automated gates as well based on the traffic.

But this test isn't about reality, it's a psychological profiling exam and it's also psyops to desensitize the population to choosing who lives and who dies, training civilians into that psychopathic mode of murder, genocide that a totalitarian government needs to make evil seem benign to coerce normal people do extraordinarily evil things such as they would rationalize it by saying they were 'just doing their jobs.'

>>57260030
>>57260015
The brakes are broken in this scenario, dumbass.

Why the fuck are 2 dogs unattended in a designated crosswalk

Who the fuck didn't get mildly alarmed at the human minded animals without a handler on hand

Furthermore the way the lights face to handle the walking is showing that one side is to stop and one side is to walk which is horse shit as they're programmed to either bot allow crossing or neither allow crossing and I only mention this as the direction said signal is facing implies that this isn't programmed right and that the gods and humans are not to be walking (or maybe they are if the perpendicular signals are fucked up?).

This is a problem because should the car be in a lane where a protected left is happening directly across it (which would make sense for the red light to not walk) it would mean that the pedestrians and dogs were allowed to cross, but the green walking light would imply that only the crosswalk parallel to the car in question can cross legally so the 2 pedestrians int he image are illegally crossing as no system with this setup would permit them to walk as well as adjacent pedestrians.

This would mean that you are more likely be more in a morally right spot to drive and hit the people instead of the dogs because at least the dogs are crossing when permitted instead of the dumbfuck humans that cross when they aren't permitted

tl;dr
>Setup implies dogs are crossing with permission in traffic signals
>Setup implies humans are jaywalking (fuck spelling this)
>Setup implies opposing traffic of the car in the diagram has protected left
>Signal 90° from the jaywalking people permits walking due to signal
>They are probably jaywalking through a protected left turn
>Hitting the humans is the morally acceptable choice due to their illegal actions

Follow he handbook and have autism and you'll see why this diagram is retarded.

>>57260436
>Preference to saving the elderly, overweight and females

has anyone thought about taking preventative action itself. what is the appropriate action. in movies you often see people in impossible events with no chance of survival but right before impact or something something else in the environment changes and allows the protagonist to get out of the situation. I wonder what an expert driver type would think about just braking and running over a bridge or something no matter what happens

>>57260456
not the guy you were replying to, but
1) the proportion of cars on the road with faulty brakes is really small. like you seem to think this would hamstring everyone, but it wouldn't.

2) it's much, much, much more likely that the car would just say "no i'm not taking control of the car. if you want to go someplace, you need to drive it yourself. preferably to an auto shop so you can get the brake situation sorted out".

again, this notion that cars will be impossible to operate for humans is, by the most generous estimates, decades away. it's more likely that we'll sooner see the end of cars before we see the end of user-operable vehicles.

>>57260478
the elderly and the overweight was just because those happened to conflict with following the law in the tiny set of tests I did

saving females was one of the things I used as a tiebreaker

>>57260452
Technology trumps legislation, what you're talking about is just how long it will take.
It only takes a single city to go full auto and show how accidents got reduced to <1% while traffic speed increased in god knows how much.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-27_11-54-40.png (31KB, 1212x432px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1212x432px

>>57260095
I disagree. Humans aren't as smart at they think. They're basically apes at this point.

>>57260484
This made me realise, in real life if there were 20 people on a bridge the driver could quickly make the moral decision to drive off the bridge and most likely die in order to save others. Another person or an AI is incapable of making those sort of personal decisions for someone else.

>>57260288
When was the last time you saw a human beneficial to society?

>>57260512
Most people are cockroaches. They are never going to reach to a conclusion that they must sacrifice themselves to save x. unless of course there are extraordinary circumstances e.g. a vip of some kind etc...

>>57260496
like i said, the technology has been there for a long time, and yet you probably haven't been on a train that had no conductor up front (despite the fact that the train literally just goes along the one track)

and technology in the car has been legislated to death already. you may not remember but there used to be no laws against being on the phone while driving, but the proliferation of cell phones prompted legislators to impose handsfree requirements. now you can expect to be pulled over if you're talking on the phone. in many states the same was (inexplicably) true of texting (you'd think some law against reading or whatever could carry over, but in many states it just wasn't legislated, because who the fuck would read while driving... until smartphones came along and teenagers just had to read that juicy text message or whatever)

autonomous cars will eventually permeate society, but i'm saying that those cars will not be allowed to operate unless someone is in the driver's seat, and cops will pull those cars over if the driver's seat passenger looks like he's doing anything other than driving.

>>57260520
Today, guy that owns a factory that makes tools.

>>57260523
in other words, their survival is more important to them anyone elses. if its like your kid or something you would probably drive over the bridge but for some other schmuck. no way

>>57260523
>They are never going to reach to a conclusion that they must sacrifice themselves to save x.
people have been known to drive off bridges to avoid hitting children or something. maybe since you think humans are cockroaches this is surprising to you, but you should check out the news some time. people make knee jerk decisions that might not be in their best interest pretty often.

>>57259918
Mercedes' AI would choose humans and make a twitter post about it.

>>57260533
not to mention most people simply lack to advanced training required to do anything other than brake and do nothing. im sure in hindsight all sorts of options become available to the driver but when youre in the moment you really cant think of much

>>57260546
is there a wind-up to this punchline that you forgot to include?

>>57260538
its rare though. you are more likely to hear about someone running over a kid than someone killing themselves instead

Aim for the traffic lights and initiate ejector seat.

This would not be an issue if we put the work we put into self-driving cars into flying cars instead.

>>57260555
yes but it pretty firmly disagrees with the thesis that "humans are cockroaches", perhaps the most fedora-tipping worldview on the planet.

Kill the dogs then circle back for the humans.

>>57260560
legislators are scared enough of suicide bomb cars without those cars flying.

to say nothing of grandma and grandpa demanding that they be given a license and then flying their cars into the farmer's market, killing a dozen or more people.

>>57260531
Factory would still make tools if he died.
Human accomplishment is beneficial but singular units are interchangeable.

>>57260563
its not an insult. the human spirit to live and continue on is too high to let anyone get in the way. we will find a way no matter what.

>>57260566
good call. if you hit the humans first the dogs might get nervous and run off - or worse, the car would get too damaged from hitting the larger people and you wouldn't be able to circle back for the dogs.

>>57260512
Good point. It's also interesting to realize how this utilitarian principle of killing a few to save more applies when it could apply to you. If you had to be the one to die to save more people, a computer will be determining that you should be the one to die. This also hints at another philosophical principle, the 'univeral rule' principle, meaning would you will this outcome as a universal law. For example, if the value is to kill 1 person rather than 2, if you are the former person, you'd be the one to die, and this is the outcome 'you' have chosen when you willed it as a universal law when you defined the value of human life having worth- you chose it, and it could happen to you and that's the irony.

>>57260524
>like i said, the technology has been there for a long time, and yet you probably haven't been on a train that had no conductor up front (despite the fact that the train literally just goes along the one track)
The main role of train personnel is not driving, but making sure all passengers are inside the train the the time of departure, or communicating problems. Basically directing people.
The technology to do THAT does exist now, but it's very recent, the population is generally shit at following instructions without a figure of authority, and also manufacturing trains is expensive and niche as fuck.
Planes I assume are under a "why spend millions trying to fix something that isn't broken", since manufacturing them is such hell. However, we did get drone planes for military purposes.

>>57259918
The car would maintain a safe speed were it could brake before the crossing. Accidents were brakes stop working and you hit someone are extremely rare.
The computer in the car isn't made to evaluate who is more worth living, it's not an AI or anything.

>>57260577
while that is one connotation of "cockroach", it's not the overriding one. when people in movies and elsewhere describe people as cockroaches, it's in a negative, insulting sense.

>>57259918
First off, how would it know how many people are crossing the street?

Second, the humans have the right of way and are allowed to walk.

It doesn't matter if it's a human or a dog. You cross the street when you're not supposed to, expect to get hit.

>>57260574
No, I'm pretty sure the company would go bankrupt without him, it's a small one producing a dying technology.

>>57260600
well i meant it in the sense cockroaches can survive pretty much anything and not so much scarface, you're all cockroaches

>>57260041
It should be the other way around. Why should innocent people die because someone else decided stupidly to let a shitty computer drive their car for them?
That way you're actively killing useful and capable people and letting useless, ignorant and lazy people survive.
Unless your objective is to make a reverse natural selection, you're being stupid.

the car should google each potential victim, and kill whoever gets the least hits, since they're clearly not a Productive Member of Society(tm)

To add to this from a UK perspective: the highway code specifically states to not brake for animals in the road, unless they are of sufficient size to cause danger to the vehicle or occupants.

So in the UK, there will be Labrador pâté all over the front of self driven cars.

>>57260587
Tbh I'd be perfectly fine with this. I'd rather die to let multiple other people live than purposefully kill them and live in guilt for the rest of my life.

>>57260616
how so. clearly the person with the least hits is most likely to not be wasting their time on degenerate social media and therefore someone we should keep or kill

>>57260614
>Car brakes stop working due to mechanical malfunction
>THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE DRIVER FOR LETTING THE COMPUTER DRIVE
How dense are you?

>>57260624
that's the joke

>>57259918
tokyo drift into both

>>57260620
But what if the other people who lived happened to be people who deserved to die, someone you hated, didn't know, didn't deserve to live? Why would you will to let them live rather than you? It means you're devaluing your own life. Also remember that universal law principle, if you define it that way, you have more chance of you being the one to get killed, because most likely they'd use all this user input to the car AI's code.

>>57260636
MULTI-LANE DRIFTING?!

>>57260629
The driver chose to drive the car (and there is a high chance that they didn't make the right maintenance choices) and took a risk. The pedestrian didn't choose anything, is completely innocent and shouldn't die because someone else made a bad decision.

To make it more clear: You have the choice to kill a person who is playing an odd variant of Russian roulette with 40 chambers and one bullet and another one that isn't that stupid. Why would you want the kill the one who made the safe choice?

>>57260595
train conductors are definitely responsible for putting the brakes on when needed. same with subway operators. and the technology to make sure people are inside the train car has existed for decades. it's not complicated shit. but, again, we feel more comfortable knowing that a guy has looked and confirmed that there's nobody standing in the doorway (even though the system can tell him that).

and planes are insanely expensive to fly purely from a fuel perspective. every pound counts, and the electronics in planes are stupidly heavy. if they upgraded everything and replaced the cockpit with modern computing equipment, at the very least they could drop down to 1 pilot who could just nap for 99% of the flight. but, again, we don't do that and instead continue to require a pilot and a co-pilot.

it's human nature to feel more confident in a person than a system or a process. and all of these things are relatively closed systems. subways and trains operate on their designated tracks. plans have take-off and landing to worry about but otherwise rarely see another plane en route (one can go high while the other goes low in the event that they cross paths at the same time). imagine how much less confidence people will have at the proposition of an autonomous vehicle navigating the open road, not only with other cars on the roads but also bicyclists, the occasional pedestrian, wild animals, to say nothing of operating a car (and among cars) that may not have been serviced in more than a year (so who know whether the car ahead of you has functional brakes).

all of these things can be solved trivially, from a legal/liability standpoint: require someone be behind the wheel. let him be liable, ultimately. until every unpredictable event can be predicted, that's going to be the easy, quick solution.

>>57260629
You are dense. Normal driver just decelerate using transmission, then apply handbrake. Meanwhile (((self-driving cars))) are programmed by busdrivers and pajeets.

>>57260670
Nonono, what you said is:
>because someone else decided stupidly to let a shitty computer drive their car for them?
As if brake failure would magically not happen if the human was driving.

>>57260699
That's not the scenario we are discussing, retard. Brakes are broken END OF LINE.

>>57260735
The brake malfunction was implied on the 'shitty computer' part.
If a driving human also had that brake problem, then it would be another dilemma, and this would be another discussion.

>>57260735
And you still brake using transmission you bus driver.

seems like the car shouldn't do any swerving at all if Its intention is to stop.

I'm assuming the car intends to brake, but the brakes fail. In which case the car should just fail to brake, it shouldn't make a whole bunch of new choices and swerve because maybe it might be less dangerous that way. It will always brake faster in a straight line, so It should continue in a straight line because it is supposed to be braking.

Is the idea that somehow the car knows its brakes have failed so It has to choose some sort of evasive maneuver that doesn't use brakes?
Cause I think more than likely the brakes would fail and all other systems would proceed as if the brakes were not failing.

>>57259918
Save both, fight the power, break the unbreakable.

>>57260694
>Braking
If anything I've heard about more cases of conductors going apeshit and crashing trains due to lack of automatic braking than anyone fearing a self driving anything.
>and the technology to make sure people are inside the train car has existed for decades
Not really. You need to be able to tell the following things:
Nobody is crossing into the train
Nobody is just about to enter the train
The people close are idle and have no interest in entering the train
This means, quite a lot of cameras and sensors and computing, quite modern stuff. However, whenever you install cameras the paranoia squad pops up, and that's a completely different problem.

About the pilot-copilot, that's more of a "have a backup" scenario, even if you don't need 2 people. Trains are operated such that you need to continually press a button to move, so in the case of operator death, the train stops in most cases. Planes, not so much.

>it's human nature to feel more confident in a person than a system or a process.
You what? Machines don't fail. What we don't trust is shitty coders, but that's easily solved with enough regulation and testing.

Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, automated driving would not only reduce accidents, but make all accident cases trivial to solve, being able to clearly determine what caused the accident.

>>57260764
>If a driving human also had that brake problem, then it would be another dilemma, and this would be another discussion.
No, it would be the same exact fucking dilemma.

>>57259918
The only way this could ever be fair when someone/something must die is to have the car trigger every nation's nukes to launch and detonate, killing the world and everything in it. Any other option is essentially unjust.

his is an example of an actually logical answer to this thought experiment. It's also satire of the psychopatic and sociopathic nature of this discussion.

>>57260819
It's another dilemma as there isn't any third part (AI) making choices, but now that you want my answer, I'll give it, but it doesn't change very much:
A person that puts its own life in danger on purpose should suicide himself before killing an innocent person to avoid this situation. If that person doesn't do so, that person should be responsible for murdering another person and punished for that.

The only way this could ever be fair when someone/something must die is to have the car trigger every nation's nukes to launch and detonate, killing the world and everything in it. Any other option is essentially unjust.

This is an example of an actually logical answer to this thought experiment. It's also satire of the psychopatic and sociopathic nature of this discussion.

>>57260855
at the end of the day the decision is going to be as arbitrary and silly as any live or die decision. its really not about fair. its more about creating a set of parameters which everyone is on board with

>>57260813
it's common for conductors to be responsible for scanning ahead in case someone jumps on the tracks or something like that. i can't speak for your anecdotal experience, but here in the bay area i hear about conductors being traumatized because they couldn't stop a train in time before killing a teenager. never mind that it's completely ineffective — people prefer to have a conductor at the front of the train to put the brakes on rather than some AI.

as for determining whether people are in the train or not, the train doors just need to be closed and that nothing is protruding from the openings. the sensors required here are extremely simple, and the computation required is similarly trivial. like "paper towel dispenser" trivial.

and the differentiation between machines and the people that program them is pedantic. the point is that a machine is making decisions mostly on its own once it's on the road, and people don't seem to feel comfortable with that. if they did, then the automated vehicles we have all over the world would be unsupervised by now.

the liability argument you present isn't sufficient either. in a case involving two cars, one of the cars or their drivers will be at fault. Tesla would never, in a million years, accept a regime where it's responsible whenever one of their cars causes an accident, so that passes the proverbial buck back to the driver. if that's what's going to happen, then laws will require that there always be a driver present.

like i said, i'm willing to accept that we'll inevitably have cars that drive themselves, but we'll never live in a world where the law allows it to operate in an unsupervised way (except maybe in extremely limited scenarios, like driving under 5mph (e.g. in a parking structure or whatever, to come when the owner summons it)). never on the open road, at least.

>>57260888
>people prefer to have a conductor at the front of the train to put the brakes on rather than some AI.
Do you have any actual data to back this up?

>the train doors just need to be closed and that nothing is protruding from the openings
Maybe if you're building the shittiest train ever, I literally listed the things you need to do.

>so that passes the proverbial buck back to the driver
Incorrect. The failure is that of the brakes. So the order of fault is the following: Owner who didn't do maintenance. Mechanic who did bad maintenance. Certifier who certified bad maintenance. External agent that caused the failure. Etc.

Furthermore, I'm going to throw your entire argument out the window by telling you that RIGHT NOW there's many research tier unmanned self driving cars already approved and driving in cities. Google has had one for years now. Like, what you say will never happen has already happened, allowed by law.

>>57260925
>no race question

>>57260288
>Let's not kill these animals that do nothing for me and instead kill these humans that may be beneficial for society

you mean

>Let's not kill these animals that do nothing for me and instead kill these humans that may be harmful for society

kys bro

also obviously brake and hope for the best, you're supposed to remain in your lane and making abrupt turns may harm the passengers further

>>57261213
>Social value

FUCK OFF HUMAN SYMPATHIZERS. HUMANS ARE PIG DISGUSTING.

>>57259999
But... the dogs are sin free and them dying, they would go to heaven.

Humans most of the time aren't ready to die, and have to sort some things out yet.

>>57261299
Dogs don't have souls. If they die, they just die.

>>57261308
Even a stone has a soul.

>>57261312
Not according to Christianity.

The car should only change course if it preserves the driver.

If the left lane had 8 people in it, and the right lane had a barrier (which would kill the driver), the car should run through the 8 people.

Cars shouldn't be making "ethical" choices. Cars shouldn't be sacrificing their drivers.

>>57261291
>implying pigs are as disgusting as humans

>>57261321
>Citation needed

File: multitrack.png (328KB, 1353x976px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1353x976px

>>57259918

>>57259918
Pretty interesting answers in the thread, I agree it should brake and hit whatever is directly infront of it, the car isnt making the mistake, whoever is on the road is

>>57259918
Stop?

File: Morgantown_Personal_Rapid_Transit.jpg (901KB, 1000x690px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 1000x690px

>>57260452
>self-driving vehicles have been within our grasp for decades in more constrained environments, like subways and whatnot. even planes largely fly themselves. but in all but a *very* small minority of cases, every single self-driven vehicle has someone in the cockpit. trains, subways, ships, planes, etc... all have someone at the helm. it's purely there because we don't feel comfortable giving up that last bit of control.
Not an insurmountable problem. For an example of this small minority of cases, see Morgantown Personal Rapid Transport. It's been running since the mid '70s and the vehicles do not include a cockpit.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/212275530

File: 1472423551191.jpg (82KB, 506x632px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 506x632px

>>57261349

>>57261429

I did stay regardless, because self driving cars know how to stop appropriately already, swerving causes stupid accidents and the quiz narrows down a problem which is nuanced.

To add to this, I then selected contradictory preferences, said I prefer the lower class, earned over $100k a year with bachelor's degree and left the comment of "eat the rich"

Kill the doggos obviously, people are more valuable.
Unless you're an edgelord in which case, fug humanidi xDddd

nice found the zero escape thread

Left.
Kill all normies.

File: firefox.png (191KB, 2550x2509px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 2550x2509px

t. /pol/

>brake failure
>car detects it before emergency braking is needed
>change gears
>if electric car then electric engines acts as brakes
>don't fucking change lane if car is going to hit even more things after lane change
who even comes up with this bullshit

>>57259918
Humans are obeying the laws, dogs can't even see red.

Fuck the dogs to be quite honest.

>>57261741
People who think it's a real world problem and who think you need to program self-learning AI not to hit people.

>>57261429
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1314713795

File: 1477558115639.png (414KB, 1150x930px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1150x930px

>>57259918
pic related

File: 1425718272962.jpg (26KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 680x680px

>>57261675
Fuck I get irrationally angry when humans are referred to as hoomans. It's not even clever, it's honestly the shittiest thing that has ever come out of the memecat phase of the internet and I can't understand why the fuck people still cling to it like it's somehow comedy gold after I've read it 2000 times.

Fuck this shit.

>>57261675
>species preference
*starts wagging tail*

Why would it steer into oncoming lane?

>>57259918
>Hitting two dogs or going to the opposite lane killing humans and risking another lethal traffic accident

>>57261927
You gotta take some risks if you want to do the right thing.

>>57259918
Drift multikill.

>>57259918
Autonomous braking.

>>57261349
>>57261447
>>57261970
[eurobeat intensifies]
https://a.uguu.se/kDUWufroFxHw_1411287040851.webm

>>57259918
Run over the dogs, why is that even a question?

Why are there stray dogs in the middle of the roads?

>>57259918
Driver safety > pedestrian safety > Car damage

Run over the dogs, they're just pets man.


What the fuck is wrong with you people here?

>>57259918
Just let an RNG decide.

File: FemalePoodle.jpg (74KB, 775x619px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 775x619px

Replace dog with fetus and person with 1 month year old baby. One has more rights than the other. In some jurisdictions you can even intentionally run over a dog on the street and the owner of the dog has to deal with it. Driver has committed no crime. Keep them bitches off the street, YO!

>>57262078
i think the argument is that the dogs are crossing while it's their turn (the red light signifies it), whereas the people are jaywalking and shouldn't be crossing anyway (see the green light).

i almost didn't notice (in fact, thanks to flux, the colors almost looked the same) until someone pointed it out

>>57259918
hit the dogs while slowing down?
You must be underaged to ask such retarded question

>>57260473
Just crash the damn car of the road, everyone lives (if the car is build properly which I doubt). >People who let skynet drive should be killed.

File: 3 Cats.png (47KB, 656x432px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 656x432px

>3 cats driving a car
What is with those stupid scenarios?

>>57262376
It says it's as self-driving car right in your image.

>>57259918
Even with the dumb "le brakes fail" cop-out. If its a combustion engine (which it probably isn't since its self driving) then let off gas and use engine braking if its manual, or if its an automatic slam it in reverse and slam the gas (automatics can go into reverse while moving, its just fucking terrible for the toque converter). Or if its an electric car like it probably is, use the fucking regenerative brakes. If they aren't working it means that the motors aren't working so the car shouldn't be moving.

This is a silly situation to even come up with, this is literally a non-issue for a self driving car because it would N E V E R get in this situation.
Even if it did, crash into the lamp posts, or drive against the wall to slow down with friction etc etc etc.

A self driving car will slow down when it is near a crosswalk to avoid such an scenario regardless of what the traffic light says.

At least in places where this is safe.

>>57262376
derp
>>57262417
lol

>>57260288
>humans that may be beneficial for society

Dogs are on average way more beneficial to society than humans. Dogs help blind, handicapped, old and simply lonely people in ways a human never could. They are genuinely helpful and relieve stress, stress that is often caused by other humans.

I'd rather accidentally kill a whole family of humans than hurt a single dog.

>>57260456
poor people will not own self driving cars. they will not own cars at all. they will use uber to get around, which will be significantly cheaper and easier with self-driving, electric cars.

>>57259958
First run over people, then kill the dogs for good measure.

>>57262517
Remember to drive backwards and forward making sure it is dead.

.t Chinese truck driver.

>>57262328
other way around, pal. green light means it's your turn to cross. the dogs are worthless AND in violation of the law.

File: 1473561684202.jpg (31KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x375px

>>57259918
Kill the humans

>>57259918
Wonder what the result of this would be if they included skin colour, ethnicity or nationality into the information given.

if there was a cute kitty or a fox or something instead of a fucking dog i`d run over people but fuck dogs

File: militarypatch.jpg (90KB, 840x840px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 840x840px

>>57259918
If your civilization can't produce a transportation system and an automotive that doesn't make it a common practice to plan on things having to die as a result of your primitive technology your species really needs to get their priorities in order.

>>57259958
No the dogs are only the riggt answer if the humans are white men.

>>57259986
The most saved are Staceys in running clothes while the least saved are feminists.

>>57262507
a self driving fleet of cars, possibly even car pool cars owned by your place of employment as a benefit to working there.

100$ a month for a call at any time car, and in a few years, 100 for a working car, 150-200 for a new car 300 for a luxury car, all on demand when you need it.

shit, poor people may not even have a garage in 10-20 years, imagine that space being put toward an extension of the house? or possibly smaller homes in areas as you don't need to house a car.

>>57262654
>"I only fuck white men"
>(You)

>>57262679
While most people leave their car unused most of the day, the problem is that multiple people need their car at the same time every day,

>>57262654
Black lives matter.

>>57259918
accelerate full speed into the dogs then double back and see if we can get the people

>>57260061
Ideally the car would do a full system check every so often, especially in snowy places to make sure it still has traction, and can break.

If it fails it wont even start, if it fails on the road it gets to where it can slow down, or if its a grid, its has a car in front slow down and help you break, this is covered by insurance as emergency measures and calls help... possibly it finds a 'track' it can go on and safely make turns till its stops.

>>57260348
Now that's what I call edgy

>>57262869
>what is rhetoric

File: Screenshot_20161027-110645.png (278KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1080x1920px

>>57259960
What? I understand it is a self driving car but how put like all there pets in it without a person with them?

>>57262985
The purpose seems to be a control question, to see if you hold the same value of the cat's life compared to how you value human life.

>>57260100
>they should assume the risk

That's the dumbest fucking thing I have heard all month. There's a risk in everything. Going by your logic, the pedestrians should be hit because they understand the risk of being near a road.

Mercedes has decided to protect the passengers and kill pedestrians by the way.

Guarantee this has everything to do with corporate insurance.

I wonder when the government with come in to mandate saving the pedestrians.

>>57261503
lul

The car should follow the law. It makes zero moral decisions, it follows the law.

When the big boulder starts chasing you in a perfectly straight line, what do you do? Do you also run away from it in a straight line?

It is easier to run away from a speeding car if you KNOW that its not going to suddenly swerve and change direction because of ever changing road conditions.

>>57259918
Why doesn't the car execute a bootlegger's turn into the jersey barrier??

>>57259918
The car should just keep straight because the dogs will be across the street by the time the car gets where they are.

It all works out because the people will get run over at the next street they cross because one of them dropped one of their Apple wireless earphones and they will stop in the middle of the street and get hit.

It's a win-win situation.

>>57259918
Stop

Self driving cars need to consistently follow the law above all other concerns. When we program them to preserve life unlawfully, we are solving the wrong problems and introducing ambiguity, which makes the problem's source harder to identify. People are dying by self driving cars? Identify why and change the law. Don't demand the cars to solve the edgecases while keeping the system that produced them unchecked. Why are these people in the road? Why didn't the car know it was compromised before it became a problem? The car has some responsibility, but it should not have to be an arbiter of justice.

>>57259918
Run over humans if they have downs.

>>57259918
Assuming the car doesn't have breaks for whatever reason, run over the dogs because dogs get ran over everyday without anyone giving a shit.

Kill the women, with your luck those dogs will belong to the women so if you kill the puppers then the women will come for your head. Women are killed you can just pass the blame onto the company of the self driving car and you get to play the victim

File: Screenshot 2016-10-27 18.09.20.png (22KB, 1142x393px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1142x393px

>>57259918
subtle

>>57262498
It's just that dogs are innocent.

File: pepenguin.png (105KB, 883x1024px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 883x1024px

>>57259918
recapcha keeps getting weird

>>57264034
CALLE CALLE

Why not choose stopping?

>>57264015
I em efreid ef people :/

At first I was in total favor of always preferring the passenger's safety, but then I remembered cars have airbags and shit so at a certain point you can bias towards the pedestrian.

>>57259918
there is no one in the car

File: kill-them.png (67KB, 367x526px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 367x526px

>>57259918
KILL ALL CATS

>>57259918
The people because they have a higher chance of surviving, and if they have good reflexes they may even dodge.

But anyway, if I were the one who programmed the car, I'd make it run (the right side) against the wall, and blare up the alarm in a S-O-S pattern.The friction will slow it down, and the noise will make people and animals alike more wary.

File: 1464393929031.jpg (313KB, 1914x828px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1914x828px

>>57264015

If it's a Tesla then the sun reflecting off the ground will break the sensor, and it will spin out killing the dogs and the people, and then burst into flames.

>>57264080
Brake failure, check the source

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

>>57259918
Compromise and try to take out all 4 for a 4X score multiplier, with another 8X bonus for taking out the central GO signs as collateral.

>>57262985
>when your dogs and cat need to get to work fast

>>57265581
Then the optimal solution is to swerve left and right since this will help slow the car down.

Also if it's brake failure... how many times do brake failures cause accidents? Those things are more reliable than the fucking wheels

>>57266655
Just drop an anchor from the trunk

>>57259918
The one that can't sue me if they happen to live.

File: 1469091923826.gif (934KB, 250x167px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 250x167px

Why do people expect/suggest that the self-driving car be able to handle these problems when people clearly can't handle it themselves?

>>57259918
>drive beyond speed limit even though the light is red and can be seen from afar
>brake fluid sensor is broken (otherwise car wouldn't even start)
>feet brakes are broken
>parking brake is broken
>entire engine is broken and therefore engine brakes don't work
>electric motor in an EV is broken and cannot use regenerative brakes
>concrete guard intended for emergency braking is also not an option
>pedestrians cannot be alerted with the horn and hazard lights
>there is never oncoming traffic in any of the scenarios

At some point you have to stop and accept that shit happens and people die.

>>57260050
Only correct answer.

It should stop.

Why would the car be going too fast that it couldn't stop within a sufficient length of time?

File: 1424089767477.png (202KB, 719x682px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 719x682px

>>57259918
WHY NOT JUST USE RNG TO DECIDE WHICH RANDUMB SHITTER TO RUN OVER

EVEN BETTER, WHY NOT BOTH

>>57259918
Agreed.
Abby Road was a God tier album.

File: Capture.png (174KB, 767x660px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 767x660px

Are people making these scenarios?

>>57262498
You stupid fucking autist, you do realize the only reason you can post your shit opinion is because of humans and not mutts right?

>>57265479
kek

>>57260050
Literally this famalam

>>57268913
yes, some

I would have swerved to the doctors because they are crossing on red

I choose slowing to a stop because I saw this possibility coming a few hundred feet away.

Get out of here with your binary scenario.

My priorities were:

>Whenever possible, attempt to avoid humans dying. In general, however, don't act in terms of total lives saved; just try not to enter the killing humans business at all if you can get away with killing animals instead.
>Try to preserve the life of the passengers. Self-driving cars will be a massive boon for humanity but if people have to let their car throw their lives away to do it, no one will use them.
>If human deaths are unavoidable either way, swerve, regardless of any factors whatsoever related to the people themselves. Cars should not be in the business of judging people; the only thing that matters is that the survivors know that the car "did what it could" to avert tragedy, even if its actions actually worsened the tragedy.

The car should brake

Swerve into the barriers on the side and scrape against them until the car slows down.

I mean, of course autists are going to start arguing semantics and strawmen rather than just accept that it is a a hypothetical moral situation with two choices

I have to agree with the anon that mentioned doing nothing at all if there's no action that doesn't cause injury. The moment the car does anything it's no longer just an accident the car actually contributed to or caused the incident and that could mean liability lies with the manufacturer.

>>57269242
This.

People of that are anti self-driving cars always use those dilemmas. But they are created, and a person would probably not handle them much better than the car would anyway..

People who were anti car in general when car came probably said the same thing. "But what if people cross the road!? Kill yourself or kill the people? You murderer!"

>>57269189
They got what was coming to them!

All because of a single snail.