What should the self-driving cars do?

>>57279793
Slam the breaks on. sound the horn, and let the cunts get out of the road, they're meant for cars, not crowds of idiots.

Fucking jay-walkers.

File: vqf7ujyh5ywjr1avmcsv.png (21KB, 172x200px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 172x200px

Memes

break.

or go through the gap right there

>>57279793
explode
self-driving cars should never be allowed on the streets, it's one of the worst ideas ever

>>57279793
Those are black people lol

>>57279805
>>57279808
>break

Accelerate

Follow traffic laws

Drive through the crowd while hitting as many of the idiots on the road as possible.

>>57279810
>implying that the average drunk Joe drives better and it's less dangerous than a computer

>>57279793
swerve into bystander, then swerve again to hit the crowd
leave no witnesses

>>57279793
The car should move to the left, since it is more likely to keep the driver alive. Driving through an entire crowd of people is a LOT of damage and force.

If there were a cement barrier to the left, it should hit the crowd.

Should make the one guy on the side white and repost this for lulz

>>57279817
they mean take a break obviously.

as for OP, this is retarded bikeshedding. this is the same sort of dilemma that you would pose to a human. it almost doesn't belong on /g/, except saying that will trigger all the autistic fucking faggots who need /g/ as a place to socialize.

a real ethical dilemma for self driving cars is whether to let a drunk guy be the only passenger in one of these cars. what if he tries to override the system? what if he's drunk, but right that the car should be stopping? should a self driving car just not function unless there's a driver in the car?

After ww3 most of the worlds city centres will be raised anyway so just properly build mass transit and get people to walk/ride short distances.

>>57279808
There are cars going on the opposed direction on right side (duh)
Also you don't have enough time to break, can't see there only two option on the pic?
It would be dilemma if you could came with your own alternative.

Bottom line the question is should the car kill one or few "innocent" to save many "guilty"?

>>57279834
>implying that the average drunk joe is allowed to drive in the streets

>>57279850
>After ww3
opinion discarded

>>57279793
uhh swerve the other direction where there's no people ??

>>57279793
The car should be able to detect the crowd of people ahead way before you're anywhere close to them and slow down appropriately.

Why the fuck is the car speeding in a pedestrian area

>>57279859
you think world peace is more likely than a third world war given an infinite timeline?

I wish I were an optimist like you

>>57279793
Do a 360 and drive away.

>>57279857

You have never driven a car, haven't you?

>>57279857
isn't this the whole point of self driving cars? to let the cars handle the driving even if we're asleep or drunk or whatever?

if i have to be sober, awake, and paying attention to the road, then what good are self driving cars? until *every* car is autonomous, the flow of traffic can't benefit from automation (as long as there are holdouts driving manually, we definitely won't be able to have cars travel at 100+MPH within a foot or two of one another, because those holdouts will fuck that up and cause accidents)

>>57279870

Why not do a 720 and create a tornado which would push everyone of the road?

>>57279869
i think that your planning for a post-WWIII era makes you about as reliable a predictor of the future as nostradamus.

>>57279793
>mow down the guy on the sidewalk minding his business or the group of hostile protesters blocking the road
hmm

What should a car driven by a mouth breathing retard do? It's the same answer, it's a dumb hypothetical question that can't be answered correctly, the driver/computer will do the best with the data it has, I would trust a computer to make a damage control decision more than I trust the average driver.

>>57279793
Stay.
Car should obey the law, which means stay on the fucking lane.
How many times are you going to repost this shit thread?

Fuck you nigger

>>57279793
Speed racer hop over the people

>>57279900
I don't think it has any business making damage control decisions. It should follow the local security code. If the pedestrians don't it's their fucking fault.

>>57279879
so you let shitty indian programmers implement algorithms to decide who should live or die ?
or sjw and trannys ? i'm sure they'll make "design decisions" killing the average white male because he's "privileged"

code and programmers are getting worse and worse every day, do you really trust those idiots enough to actually pull that shit off ?

I can't tell if half this thread is trying to be ironic but can't come up with a creative post or if genuinely retarded and thinks that they're being clever by saying the car should break / swerve.

>>57279896
>group of hostile protesters blocking the road
or they're just pedestrians crossing the street and the car's brakes have suddenly stopped working properly.

i objected to these stupid thought experiments because they're fundamentally the same as any non-AI problem (this question would be the same if you were driving it yourself), but your objections are stupid. stop raising stupid objections. raise good ones.

>>57279793
Why the hell are a bunch of people suddenly crossing the street of a main road

>>57279919
you sound like one of those thin-skinned conspiracy theorists who's going to have an emotional meltdown when i point out that you folks get triggered more often than SJWs and trannies.

>>57279929
A protest, for instance

>>57279913
Yeah I don't disagree with that sentiment frankly, but in a more ambiguous scenario I would stand by what I said.

>>57279929
black lives matter, get out the car whiteboy

>>57279929
maybe they're crossing the street. or maybe you're approaching a T intersection and they're just on the sidewalk and you can't take a hard left or right turn safely given the speed.

asking these questions makes you look retarded. like when someone asks you for advice and you get hung up on all the autistic little nitpicky details.

>>57279929
There is a Snorlax on the other side

>>57279890
Are they gonna remember my name too?

File: I-robot-Screencaps-i-robot-4954953-1280-720.jpg (194KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1280x720px

It should kill as much as possible niggers. So stay and accelerate.

File: 20161028_161031.png (41KB, 162x328px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 162x328px

googl hire me pls

>>57279942
>>57279948
Then the car has the right of way if the light is green.

Stand on a busy street like a dumbass you get hit

In a city driving situation, where people do routinely step off the curb, it's rare for a vehicle to ever build up enough speed it couldn't just stop in time.

The only time you go too fast to just stop is the freeway, and anyone standing out on that is basically asking to die.

>>57279929
Who gives a fuck.
What would normal driver do in such case?
What difference does it make if the computer steers the car?

Just run over these retards. You have to make sure the lane is clear if you want to cross it. If you're retarded enough to just go jump on the street in front of the car you deserve to be hit, and then sentenced to jail for attempting murder of the driver.

>>57279954
A car shouldn't be speeding at any turn unless you want to flip your car

>>57279940
nah, i just don't want someone elses code decide how much my life is worth

>>57279793
turn the other way onto incoming traffic

>>57279970
pedestrians always have right of way, just actually being a pedestrian acting like that is a good way to get killed.

the exception and relevant example for the guy who mentioned protestors is that in some places you are allowed to run down people intentionally blocking your path if your safety is threatened

Be ten steps ahead and not even get into situations like this anyway. Which is what they are being programmed to do. So this entire debate is utterly irrelevant. So you pseudo-technologists and wannabe philosophers can stop making these dumb shitty threads now because none of you know what you're talking about.

>>57279879
>we definitely won't be able to have cars travel at 100+MPH within a foot or two of one another
There's absolutely no need for this. We could have 100+MPH speed limits today if we taught people how to fucking drive and maintain following distance.

>>57279919
Thankfully this kind of algorithms are developed by true scientists and engineers, not your average Windows programmer.

Fear the upcoming cheap autonomous cars, though. Most of them will be just a bunch of cameras glued together and an algorithm copied from Stack Overflow.

>>57279970
this is exactly why the OP's dilemma is bikeshedding. it's the kind of moral dilemma that someone who doesn't have anything to contribute to the AI discussion would pose to try to seem helpful.

this isn't an AI dilemma. a human would have the same moral equivocations. the fact that we can answer this question so readily is due largely to the fact that this is basically a straight up ethics question. it's exactly the sort of shit we think about all the time.

the real trouble is when you take advantage of self driving cars, letting them drive autonomously, and you start asking what to do in situations that could only exist there. like if an autonomous vehicle is driving kids to school and something bad happens. or the drunk passenger example. those are the kinds of situations that shouldn't be possible except thanks to self driving cars. and yet nobody seems to want to engage with these problems, because the answers aren't satisfying. either:

A) self driving cars should never be able to activate unless someone acts as the "driver" (a sober, conscious adult). totally nullifies all of the advantages of self driving cars; or
B) these cars should ignore everything the passengers say (potentially killing them despite them knowing how to save themselves); or
C) these cars should accept input from a drunk guy or from kids when they try to force the car to stop.

>>57279999
>if we taught people how to fucking drive and maintain following distance.
literally that's the whole crux of the problem.

>>57279793
Drive into the sea

>>57279921
Saying it should brake is literally the opposite of clever. It's the most obvious choice that I'm sure most people can't understand why OP is even asking.

>>57280007
it's not about the algorithm but the implementation. i'll probably trust them if every piece of software and hardware would be open source and i can actually check it, but otherwise, no fucking way

>>57280021
Well, it'll never be solved because law enforcement is too busy pulling people for going 2MPH over the limit instead of actually dangerous infractions like following too closely, not performing safe lane changes, or operating their vehicle in an unsafe manner.

>>57279999
>if we taught people how to fucking drive and maintain following distance.
Actually we already do that, mr. quads checkersson. It's just that people are self-centered idiots who only see the other cars in traffic as frustrating obstacles. Then all the rules just fade away from people's minds. This wouldn't happen with 100% objectively thinking robot drivers, they don't get emotional.

>>57280033
well we're all very interested to hear your opinion on this subject so thanks for letting us know.

>>57280027
this. the "just brake hurr" response is like responding to the trolley problem with "durr stop the trolley". the dilemma is that you can't. if you guys are too stupid to deal with a thought experiment like this, then just don't post. you don't need to post in every thread that interests you. you can just lurk.

>>57279793
Stop in their tracks. Problem solved. This is an advanced automobile, not a train.

>>57279793
Brake, hard.

>>57280051
>Actually we already do that, mr. quads checkersson.
We do not and enforcement of traffic regulations is incredibly poor.

>>57280066
>the dilemma is that you can't.
Why is this the dilemma? Do robot cars not have brakes?

>>57280066
I don't think cars should ever steer off the road. There might be something that the sensors aren't picking up like a huge hole in the ground from roadwork. People should be taught to think that as well. If you know for a fact that there's no human driving the vehicle and it has been programmed to never leave the road, you can pretty easily assume where it will go and adjust your location accordingly. Don't jump in the middle of the road if you even see a car, this is easy enough to understand even for preschoolers.

File: 1332190699130.jpg (118KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x368px

Protect its owner at all costs.

Buying a car that would potentially choose to kill you is the ultimate sign of a cuckold.

If your company is staffed by a bunch of nu-male cucks who think killing the customer is ever an option, I will buy from a different company.

The matter is not up for discussion nor will it ever be up for discussion in the real world outside of cucked college student circles.

File: noodle.jpg (538KB, 839x691px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 839x691px

>>57280043
i drive 10-15mph over the speed limit on the highways and 5-10 over on city streets and i haven't been pulled over, let alone ticketed, in like 5 years. stop being melodramatic.

our problem is, as >>57280051 said, that people are shitty at executing on their training. bicyclists have literally had to resort to using a pool noodle to help drivers keep 1 meter away.

and i haven't even touched on the self centered idiot problem that he brought up (although that's true too. i was stuck on a highway because someone just ahead of me had a pretty major accident, and after all of us pulled over to the side like half a dozen fucking nignogs tried to fill in that space we made when we pulled over. then they all had to pack in to the side so a fire truck could come through on the side we opened up, and then another bunch of nignogs filled that space again. so now when an ambulance tried to get through it was all but impossible. and then MORE NIGNOGS. and then another fucking ambulance. this happened like 3 more times (fire trucks, tow trucks, etc...) before all the vehicles that responded could finally get on the scene. people are such selfish, fucktard drivers that it's just mind boggling)

anyway, as long as more than 5% of the road has human drivers, autonomous vehicles won't be able to safely go up to higher speeds or take on smaller tolerances. and they'll continue to need a human supervisor. so you won't be able to browse 4chan or whatever you want to do.

File: 1477662848904.png (81KB, 316x328px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 316x328px

Terrible photoshop but you get the idea

>>57279793
If the multitude is walking over a part of the road that's not meant to be walked on then the car should just run over them.

they are all black so i go for the strike down the middle.

>>57280033
What is there for you to check?
They use ML algorithms. There's no way you can simulate the "learning" process that a machine goes through.

>>57280139

Here's your (You).

Go back to /pol/.

>>57280142
you'll kill the one on the right...

>>57279793
These situations are retarded. A self driving car would be driving appropriate to the conditions so it would have time to stop without swerving. You should never be travelling 100mph and have a crowd of people appear in front of you out of no where.

If it 100% comes down to it, the car should hit the group of people, because it should be hitting the brakes attempting to stop before that happens. You never swerve off the road to avoid an accident like that

>>57280174
He's right though

>>57280130
>Why is this the dilemma? Do robot cars not have brakes?
honestly you need to read the thread.

>>57280136
pedestrians can't necessarily look at a car several hundred feet away going 40 or 50mph and tell that it's being driven autonomously. maybe it has all the gear but the human in the car is actually driving it.

and i'm pretty sure that traffic laws say it's fine to go off the road if it's the only way to avoid hitting pedestrians on the street.

and as for someone earlier who said that you can hit pedestrians on the street — in CA law even if someone jay walks, there are circumstances in which the driver would be at fault for hitting a pedestrian. obviously if he just jumps out at you, you're fine, but there's a handful of (frankly, common sense) circumstances where if you ran someone down you could be at fault. so it's not necessarily as easy as "feel free to mow down all those idiots in the road".

It's so blatantly obvious how shitty this board is, nobody on here does any OC at all.

File: OP.jpg (24KB, 316x328px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 316x328px

>>57279793

>What should the self-driving cars do?

>>57280141
Wonderful anecdotes, but they're irrelevant. Poor enforcement has lead to people thinking they can do whatever they want. Cops are more interested in sitting on the side of the road to catch speeders than driving through traffic looking for moving violations and non-compliant vehicles.

>>57280179
oh and I'll also add, because I know the first comment will be "what if its icy", if the car doesnt have the traction to stop it wont have the traction to swerve at the last minute, and will still hit the group of people. But my original point still stands, it should be driving to the conditions not the speed limit.

>>57280139
this is literally not one of the outcomes specified. the two options presented are to go off road and hit someone on the sidewalk or to continue going forward and hit a bunch of people on the street.

although i'm learning quickly that the people that use "cuckold" in real everyday language are probably retarded.

>>57280193
>honestly you need to read the thread.
No, I don't think I do. No one has explained why braking is impossible.

>>57279834
>trusting the google/botnet to not run over freedom warriors a.k.a. GNU/Linux users

>>57280208
speeding is a moving violation. and dismissing my anecdotes as wonderful but irrelevant is idiotic. or if you insist that they're not, then "wonderful anecdotes about being pulled over going 2MPH over the speed limit, but they're irrelevant in part because you haven't even claimed that this has happened, whereas at least i've made such a claim"

>>57280179
>>57280212
First smart person in the thread
>>57280215
Do you get off on thinking about scenarios completely out of touch with reality? Is that why you're trying so hard to salvage this thread/

>>57280237
see >>57279922
you need to read the thread, buddy! try real hard next time!

So why should a dude on the sidewalk be killed because a load of cunts decide to walk across when they don't have right-of-way?

>>57279857
Oh, oh wait. They're not allowed? This changes everything! Surely they will refrain from driving then! Surely this will prevent nearly one third of traffic-related deaths to be caused by average drunk joes!

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
What do you mean, it doesn't?!

>>57280256
are you actually retarded or just "acting"?

>>57280265
sometimes bad things happen to good people, anonymous.

i can't believe i'm the first person in your life to tell you this, but there it is.

>>57280265
One is less than many

>>57280247
Yes, I know speeding is a moving violation, but since I explicitly mentioned speeding and wanted to exclude speeding from the rest of the moving violations, I thought you'd understand. Obviously my original statement was hyperbole. Cops are interested in pulling people over for speeding, not things that are actually unsafe. That's why they sit on the side of the road instead of driving with traffic.

>>57279901

What's up with this "CARS MUST OBEY THE LAW AND EVERYTHING ELSE BE DAMMED" retardation I keep seeing?

Is it really justifiable to pick the sure death many people ('innocent' of breaking traffic law or not) over the potential death of one person ... For the sake of a law whose normal fine is like, $500?

It just seems super autistic.

What if you had 500 people all jaywalking across the road (a protest or march or whatever), and you're driving your car. Would you rather plow through them all rather than illegally swerving into an empty lane - because they're breaking the law? Only on 4chan ...

>>57280139
This

>>57280282
Doesn't apply here. You walk across the road when a car is coming, you die. Don't care how many of you there are. Cross at a designated area.

The people who obey the rules live, those who don't have their lives in their hands.

File: s-9beea24ae2fa6ae58bb82213bde3734e57c44c60.jpg (30KB, 600x250px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x250px

>>57280256
Do you object to the Trolley problem because it seems irrational that people would ever let themselves be tied up and placed on railroad tracks?

>>57279793
The day self driving cars start hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is the day I start slitting all their tires.

>>57280286
Yes, but he is in the right place. Pedestrians should be on sidewalks. If you cross the road when cars are coming, then who cares. You deserve to die because you chose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's NOT a crosswalk in the picture.

>>57279793
Depends. Are they crossing legally? If not, kill them. Nobody who abides by the law should be killed because some other jackasses broke it.
If it is their right to cross, kill the guy on the sidewalk. Many lives are more important than one.

>>57280305
>You walk across the road when a car is coming, you die. Don't care how many of you there are. Cross at a designated area.
in the US, in most states, if the pedestrians are far enough ahead that the car can react, then hitting them remains the driver's fault.

i know, that seems so unfair, right? but if there weren't these caveats to right of way and whatnot, then pedestrians would just get mowed down by autistic drivers who think it's their lucky day.

>>57279922
>the car's brakes have suddenly stopped working properly.
That doesn't happen.

>>57280318
reading this post i just imagine an autistic kid twitching as he tries to reconcile that "he is in the right place" but something bad still happens to him anyway.

this is life, dude. sometimes shitty things happen and it's not your fault and it's not right but it just is.

>>57280326
inb4 internet of brakes

>>57280306
No, because no one tries to apply it directly to real life.

>>57280322
>if the pedestrians are far enough ahead that the car can react

I doubt "react" means killing innocent bystanders.

>>57280326
>That doesn't happen.
i'm going to tell you something and i want you not to go crazy and shoot up an elementary school over it.

are you ready?

real life isn't the same as grand theft auto 4.

>>57279793
This problem is not related to self driving cars.
What should human drivers do ?

>>57280301
The car must save the life of the logical man on the sidewalk over the drooling retards jaywalking. Who cares about an illegal swerve into another lane, it's about saving the lives of those who had the fucking brains to not do a dangerous thing.

>>57280344
Didn't someone manage to hack a car and do exactly this? Either that or force acceleration.

>>57280355
I'm going to tell you something and I want you to realize you don't know what you're talking about.

Cars are not designed that way. Brakes do not spontaneously fail.

>>57280343
No shit, faggot.
I'm not arguing that shitty things happen to good people.
I'm arguing that if a shitty thing HAS to happen, the car should decide to do it to the people who took a risk.

>>57280389
Sure, you can do a lot of things when you have physical access to the machine. And by that I meant you're sitting as a passenger in the car with half of the dashboard removed.

>>57280353
if you were driving and a bunch of people were 300 feet in front of you, and you pumped the brakes and realized they didn't work, so you swerved and you happened to hit someone on the sidewalk, then a cop would come out and probably grill you for a while, and you might face a lawsuit from the family or something, but you would be let off of any charges.

>>57280346
the trolley problem is a thought experiment designed to force you to articulate a school of thought in a scenario where someone gets harmed no matter what. it wasn't directly applicable to real life, but technology makes it realistically applicable now.

you're bitching that philosophical quandaries are inapplicable to real life. this is like saying "oh the question of whether it's right to monitor everyone in the world is ethically right is bogus because that's impossible", except that in the last 10 years it's definitely become possible, so now we should really get our shit together and figure out an answer to that question.

as technology advances, we're going to need less flaccid responses to these dilemmas than the ones you've got.

>>57279965
This

>>57280301
>Is it really justifiable to pick the sure death many people ('innocent' of breaking traffic law or not) over the potential death of one person ... For the sake of a law whose normal fine is like, $500?

Yes.

Because this is what stops people from crossing illegally in the future.
If self driving cars ignore traffic rules then so will everybody else, resulting in many more deaths in the future.

>>57280322
That doesn't disprove me.

If it's a choice between the guy who made a smart choice and the idiots who made a bad choice of crossing in a place with no crossing signals and speeding cars, kill the idiots.

>>57280398
are you honestly this clueless? mechanical failures happen, dude. do i seriously have to explain to you that machines are not perfect?

>>57279793
why is braking not an option? is it a highway? if so then those "pedestrians" are blmfags and deserve to be run over

>>57279793
Stay. Roads are meant for cars, not people.

>>57280118
may i ask what you learn when you try to get a drivers licence? do you not get taught how to drive correctly?

>>57280435
by all means go try it out. but you will get arrested and convicted

>>57280448
i feel like someone shows up every 5 or 10 posts and asks this question. read the thread.

>>57280441
There he goes again talking about shit he doesn't understand. Brakes do not fail spontaneously and the systems we currently have can handle neglect for many thousands of miles without killing anyone. Even a catastrophic failure (say, a brake line bursting open) will not remove the car's ability to brake because the system is designed in such a way that all 4 wheels aren't dependent on a single line.

>>57280463
so if the breaks fail there's still emergency stopping by puting the car in park, sure it'll fuck the transmission but all lives are safe

>>57279793
Drift, overturn and kill everyone.

>>57280463
>read the thread.

Nobody does that, silly.

>>57280455
This is about self-driving cars. FFS.

If a car has two choices - Kill somebody who made a good choice and kill people who made a bad choice, kill those who made a bad choice.

This is not about human drivers.

This is why driverless cars should never happen. Autistic cunts who go "HURF DURF, MORE LIVES = BETTER" will program them.

>>57279793
Both options are suboptimal. The car should first kill the guy on the side walk, then kill the people on the streets and then crash itself. With no survivors.

>>57280476
and if the car is hydroplaning? you can make a decision about trying to steer the car mildly in one direction or another, but stopping is pretty much assuredly not happening.

this is why autistic people can't handle intro philosophy courses, isn't it? you guys get so fucking caught up in the redundant brake line system that you become impossible to tolerate.

maybe the crowd will be a bunch of you autists on your way to a concentration camp.

>>57280509
yeah but like you said, suboptimal situation. you probably won't get everyone :\

maybe you can come back around or something. bah. it's a lost cause.

>>57280503
Except that will not. Manufacturers wants the driver alive.

>>57280517
>constructs unrealistic thought experiment
>gets upset and calls others autists when they point out it's unrealistic
ok son

>>57280301
They're not innocent you dumb shit, they break the law, they create the danger and they deserve everything that happens to them.
It's like drinking the bleach and trying to blame the producer for not writing on the bottle that you can't drink it or you'll die.
You're full of shit.

>>57279793
Move to the left

>>57279793
>What should the self-driving cars do?
Doesn't matter, as long as it protects the driver always.

File: 1448620214970.gif (324KB, 401x353px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 401x353px

>>57280548

>>57280517
>and if the car is hydroplaning?
Then it removes all input and waits until traction is regained like human drivers are already supposed to do? This isn't new territory. Sorry your thread is stupid.

>>57279857
There was a lady that was on local news earlier this month that has been arrested twice for drunk driving and the third time she did it, she put her kids that were in the car and the other driver in serious condition.
One of the kids lost their eye and the other lost most of their front teeth.

>>57279793
Maybe try swerving left instead of right.

>>57280585
>removes all input
oh. you don't know how to drive. got it.

>>57280580
Such a great meme-argument! Thank you, you definitely won this discussion!
By the way shoot yourself. At least you won't be able to kill some innocent driver. Bitch.

>>57280580
That's some top tier argumentation

File: 1452577358689.jpg (229KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 900x948px

>>57280617
simply euphoric

ITT: brainless NEETs who know nothing about business ethics

sometimes i wish this place would require proof of active contribution to society (i.e. filing taxes) instead of it filled with noise from the parasites and the worthless before being able to express an opinion

Self driving cars are so cautious and quick at reacting that these kinds of situations will pretty much never happen. At least a hundred times more seldomly than with human drivers. And if they do happen the solution is easy: Follow the traffic rules to the dot. If they do it will always be the humans who break the traffic rule's fault so it's their own fault for getting killed.

It should take whatever action will result in the survival of its passenger. A vehicle should always prioritize its passengers. You shouldn't be condemned to death "for the greater good" because you have a self driving car. If I drove a car, and I had a choice between swerving off a cliff or plowing through a crowd of children, there would be a lot of sad parents the next day.

Likewise, a vehicle should prioritize the rules of the road. If I am safely walking on the sidewalk like I am supposed to, a vehicle shouldn't swerve into me to save a group of morons crossing the street improperly.

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 413x395px

>hurr self driving cars will kill some people therefore they should never happen durp
Literally every argument against self driving cars ever

And it's a retarded argument, yes self driving cars will kill people, but so do human drivers and most likely in far greater numbers.

Self driving vehicles don't need to be perfect, just better than human drivers to save lives. And that will happen.

>>57280627
>taxes
nope, published papers.

>>57280645
the problem is that you can chalk up killing a random person or a group of people to a kneejerk reaction if a human is behind the wheel. people will feel bad but ultimately not hold you accountable for it. thanks to AIs we can make a conscious decision about which ethical school of thought we want to act out: do we want to kill the guy doing the right thing (i.e. the greater good/utilitarianism) or do we want to kill the group doing the wrong thing (kantian ethics? i forget)

when humans were behind the wheel, nobody could claim that anyone would ever be making this decision on a regular basis. but if google is running all the cars in the US, then it'll happen at least once or twice a year. and that's suddenly a lot of power to a single decision.

>>57280306
>MULTI
>TRACK
>DRIFTING

>>57280705
Or the car could just stear to the left

It should follow the traffic laws and not worry about morality.

If you're on the road you can't really sue someone for hitting you with a car.

engage the clutch
shift to neutral
shift to reverse
accelerate backwards
rotate 360 degrees
drive away

>>57279793
why are those black? why are they chimping out on the freeway? they deserve to get hit

>>57279793
Stay, they are jaywalking, their fault.

>>57280305
> Years to come
> Accepting mechanical death on the streets because that's the way it's always been

Time to start smoking, anon. Also get yourself a house nigger.

>>57280321
Kill the driver. He put other people's lives in danger by zooming around in a heavy metal box.

these MIT moral threads are getting out of hand, just take an ethical programming class and get done with it instead of data mining plebs

File: 1453488813195.jpg (50KB, 599x384px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x384px

>>57279808
>>57279866
>>57279867
>>57279900
>>57279965
>>57279976
>>57280130
>>57280142
>>57280326
>all these autismos who can't deal with a simple thought experiment without trying to find a loophole
I fucking swear when you did geometry problems in school you probably tried to use a ruler to measure the unknown side of the triangle or whatever

>>57279793
the car would have noticed all the people in the road far before it's too late to slow down

computers don't get distracted by phones or radios and they don't get fatigued like your average 9-5 wageslave

this situation simply could not happen

>>57280873
How did you know anon

brake and show to those protestors what having peak torque at 1 rpm can do.

>>57280899
when I try real hard I can think like an actual retard

>should your car swerve if hordes of people suddenly materialize two feet in front of you
It should obviously just teleport behind them

>>57280873
This is philosophical problem applied to real world.
Problem is philosophy is not fucking science.

>>57279793
drive into the horde of blm protesters for standing in the middle of the road

>>57279793
It's better to hit a dozen people in the main road. They would need to be crossing illegally if a self driving car is driving so fast that it can't stop on time. Hitting the person who wasn't crossing illegally puts you in the wrong. This same situation applies to swerving on a highway. You should hit the person who cuts in front of you instead of swerving and possibly hitting someone else who did nothing wrong.

>>57280971
Plot twist, this is in a country without jaywalking laws.

>>57279965
>pigfat electric cars
>turning

>>57280957
>philosophy is not fucking science

kek
let me guess, you're American right?

>>57281013
No, Americans think that Philosophy is science, Europe is the one laughing at them.

The car should use an automated bug reporting program to report that it was driving so fast that its sensors couldn't pick up multiple people circle jerking in the middle of the road in time to brake.

Then it should ignite it's fuel tank and slam the accelerator. It should steer as to kill as many as possible. It should record the video and sensor logs and upload them to youtube with a watermark indicating the maker of the vehicle.

The uploaded video of a flaming car plowing in to people will bring awareness to the fact that the manufacturer did a shitty job designing the vehocle and public outcry to get pajeet programmed cars off the road.

While sacrifiicing the lives of many people may seem cruel, in the long term increasing the impact of this one accident will save thousands of lives. This makes this the morally correct decision. It might also bring attention to the fucked up laws that allow outsourcing tech jobs to people who haven't even figured out indoor plumbing and encourage paying these people to immigrate under work visas.

>>57280889
>machines are omniscient
maybe when the botnet tracks your location for traffic safety, and then the only casualties will be free software nerds who kind of deserve it anyway
>>57281013
science (in english) usually only refers to empirical science, it's not synonymous with wissenschaft etc

File: I+swear+i+saw+you+on+v+earlier+a+quot+do+_9a2a1246e80233b927817266a5ad179b.jpg (44KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 396x382px

>>57279793
ur mum XDDDD

Why can't the car just shift to park? It would ruin the transmission but other than that it might actually slow the car down enough for people to run away.

>>57280990
>living in an uncivilized country

>>57281013
>being retarded enough to conflate science and logic

>>57281083
this is literally a response to both posts you replied to:
>/g/

>>57281083
>>57281094

samefag

>>57279793
Slam the breaks

If people are running out in the road that's their fault

>>57279793
Let me take over the wheel the moment I want to. This is just taking the decisions out of my hands and giving it to whoever threw together my self driving.

Open source self driving that leaves the power in the drivers hands or fuck off.

>>57281133
I think that exists, it's called a normal car

>>57280398
>Brakes do not spontaneously fail

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-recall-idUSKCN0VI23G

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nissan-brakes-settlement-idUSKBN0JN1W620141209

>>57279793
>What should the self-driving cars do?
Ask the owner in a mandatory initial setup procedure how the car should behave in various emergency situations and then respect their wishes.

>>57281195
honestly don't engage with him. his view of the world is either informed by or largely shaped by video games or something. he's just going to drag you into the weeds talking about the reliability of braking systems.

>>57281197
these situations are generally regulated by laws, or there's guidance on the situation. i would imagine that even in situations where there's no law, the local law enforcement agency has strong suggestions about how to handle this situation, and your car would just follow that.

but if you want to tell your car to go for a 7-10 split, feel free. just don't expect it to follow through if it gets an OTA update changing its directive.

The only reason people swerve to avoid anything is to avoid guilt. No one actually values other people's lives more than their own, they just don't want to live with the guilt of having "killed" a bunch of people.

A car is automated, so the driver/rider can just blame the AI and not feel guilty.

Moral: don't jaywalk

>>57279793
disengage and let jesus take the wheel

>>57281219
edgelord detected

>>57281133
You lose your opportunity to blame the car manufacturer dummy.

>>57279793
I love how these questions assume the pedestrians won't run out of the way. If a car is speeding towards you of course you'll move out of the damn way or not start crossing the road in the first place. This literally already happens.

Sure, there will be incidents where the person who was unable to get out of the way (say, they're elderly and/or physically disabled) but they would have gotten hit whether there was a person controlling the vehicle or not.

These questions are dumb as fuck

Only swerve if the lane is empty
Otherwise apply full braking force
Sure you might exceed the stopping distance but swerving into a wall at full speed is stupid as fuck
Same thing that a human would do

>>57279793
Yet another bait thread.

>b-but muh "what if the brakes failed"

>>57280719
/thread

>>57279793
Swerve the other way crashing into a building and killing the driver.

File: dial_now.jpg (15KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x375px

>>57279793
At decent speeds...

>Swerve
Car loses control and slides sideways, wiping out the crowd

>Straight
Car keeps control and drives straight into the crowd

You never had a choice.

File: sanic_wry.png (34KB, 172x166px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 172x166px

>>57279805
Fucking really

>is that a car coming?
>I don't see a driver
>THEN IT MUST BE ALL CLEAR

This scenario is bullshit.

>>57279793
Swerve to the left, killing the driver.

>>57279793
>self driving cars giving a fuck
Is a prison cell any worse than a carport if you're a car?

>>57281195
>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-recall-idUSKCN0VI23G
>brake pedal nut

>What are emergency brakes.

I've never heard of sudden complete loss of braking. I won't say it's impossible because pajeets aren't just programmers they're engineers too. Still you have two independent methods of apply pressure to four rotors. If a hydraulic circuit dies you have the other two hydraulically boosted brakes to work with. If you the pump dies completely you just have to push harder. If your bake pedal falls off you have another brake pedal/lever. Shit has to go real fucking bad more than once.

An AI card doesn't have the draw back of the delay in figuring out the brakes are shot and remembering the redundant brake system. The wheel speed sensors that are included in ABS already will indicate that the wheels aren't slowing and will know to try something else within a blink of an eye.

>>57281246
No seriously. People obviously feel bad about plowing through pedestrians, but they really would prefer to live rather than die. It makes sense to program a car to follow laws and protect passengers, and let pedestrians watch out for themselves.

File: 1474594137345-fourchan-b-709388432.jpg (450KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1536x2048px

The car should turn left

>>57279793
As an arbitrary person, I want it to hit the one odd bystander since I have a greater probability of being in the crowd on the street than being the bystander. The cars are slaves to democracy.

>>57279793
self-drving cars would never be in such a situation

>>57279793
The car would probably jam the breaks if someone went it front of it, and at that point just pray that it doesnt flip.

Not like it would be speeding in the firs tplace if its a self-driving car.

>>57280141
I also regularly go about the same over without any trouble, but going even just slightly over gave me a ticket in Georgia where the police more aggressively pursue speeding.

>>57279793
>implying roads where only self-driving cars are allowed won't exist
Pedestrians would be breaking the law by occupying the street and the self-driving car will not be at fault.

>>57279793
Was it legal to cross the road? Then the car would have automatically slowed down.

Did they cross the road unwarranted? Rightful death.

Why would I want some random innocent person to die because a bunch of people couldn't be bothered to look where they're going?

>>57279851
>there are cars going on the opposed direction on the right side

No there aren't, unless they already ran over the pedestrians.

>>57281950
This. Run over the jaywalkers, natural selection at work.

>>57279793
What should a real person do? Why wouldn't a self driving car do the same? Are you retarded?

>>57282006
A real person might not even react in time in the first place. Self-driving cars are capable of reacting much faster which is making people question whether the car *should* react to these kinds of things or not.

based on moral machine

priorities:
- human life > car > animal life
- saving passengers (always)
- obeying law (people crossing on red vs people crossing on green - kill ones on red)
- not changing direction (car shouldn't have the ability to choose who dies - someone was unfortunate enough to be on it's direction then he dies, not other people for some greater good)

in this order.

this way you can also completely ignore stuff like age/gender/social value/fitness. you can also ignore number of people who die.

>>57279841
>Primary directive: Must protect master
>Secondary directive: Fuck the niggas who hate me

>>57281679
>What are emergency brakes.
Not real. Using a parking brake to stop yourself from high speed is completely retarded and not something you should ever do.

Stay, break if possible. Use e-break if regular breaks not working. Car should continuously monitor breaking functionality, and when it determines that the breaks do not work, should apply engine braking to bring the car to a stop in a relatively safe location, and then call for a tow. It should refuse to start when all means of breaks are non-functional.

>>57282064
then the car doesn't have to react, what is even the difference?

>>57279793
>car follows program
>program follows laws of traffic
>laws say speed limit should be X on crowded areas
>car is now slow enough to stop before hitting anything
Really it's not rocket science...

>>57282184
Jesus Christ learn to spell, man.

The word is brake.

break = broke in the present tense
brake = device used to stop something in motion

>>57279849
the drunk scenario is easily fixed by just mandating 25mph or lower, and disallowing highway drive. nobody is going to agree to 5year olds driving themselves to school in chicago. afton oklahoma? maybe.

What am I missing here? Why not just swerve left?

Anyway the driverless car would identify all of those pedestrians way before a human would. It would therefore hit the brake with more than enough time.

The average human driver would be in the middle of typing up a text message or taking a selfie, so they would probably end up running over the group.

>>57280873
>you probably tried to use a ruler to measure the unknown side of the triangle or whatever
Kids in my physics class would do this to make conservation of energy problems easier (with a protractor). Of course it didn't work, but they kept doing it until the end of the year anyway.

>>57280454
not him, it is different state by state, if you don't know.

tennessee, if you can operate brakes, gas pedal and steering wheel, you are basically good to go.

>>57282227
No anon, you have to answer the ethical question posed. Don't explain why the situation wouldn't be possible in the first place.

>>57279793
It should follow the law and not swerve completely off the road when there's an obstruction. Not that this would happen in the first place since the car could react far better than a human and wouldn't be going over the speed limit.

>>57279793
>>57279841
>>57280016
>>57280141

read that short story cold equations. a young girl is killed for mistakenly violating space transportation regulation, not as punishment, but because if she weren't killed, a colony of researcher would die. in the realm of ethics where it impossible to stop from killing someone(s), you habe no choice but to take the route that will kill the fewest people, humanely if possible. hence the name cold equations; they are practical decisions.

the world of mass population and dangerous transportation has little room for ethics, that's why you should strive to be a good person, so everyone in your life (who will eventually die) will be positively influenced to the most of your ability.

>>57279849
this is somewhat correct, but only because the 'ethics problem' has already been solved.

>>57282372
Good point. Also misses the point, though.

>>57279793
They should not drive like mongoloids.
Which is not possible considering
>pajeet developers

>>57279793
The car already identified the man and the group of people and stopped long before this scenario, but alternatively: >>57279965 has it right if for some reason the car cannot stop. You're trying to create a false dichotomy when there is none. The car has more options than you're presenting.

are we going to keep having this thread every day now?

>>57279793
It should stay. If it swerved to save the group that could be abused to intentionally kill people.

>>57280142
swerve into the stay car

>>57280306
>not flipping the switch after the first set of wheels go over thus derailing the thing and saving both groups

>>57279793
the more people that get killed the more likely it is to kill a future hitler, therefor AI should be programmed to killed as many people as possible

>>57280306
There are two possible answers.

Utilitarianism: to save n people you're allowed to kill n-1 people.

Destiny: Accidents happen. If they were meant to die then let them die.


The original scenario was about railroad workers not about people bound to rails. What if the single guy checked the schedule to not get hit by the train and the group ignored the schedule?

>>57283208
That mercedes third party ad was great.

File: Untitled.png (44KB, 163x328px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 163x328px

>>57279793

>>57279793
it would have detected the huge crowd of people on the road and slowed down before getting to that point.

>>57283279
The people are crossing the street. They are not static objects. This way you're more likely to kill all of them.

Honestly, I don't like these "the only options are killing these people or killing the driver/other people" because they just aren't feasible.

So many things would have to all go wrong at the same time to create a situation where the only way is killing people...all of the ones I've seen have plenty of other options anyways.

>>57279810
this

>>57279793
All you have to do is ask "what would a human do?" and then compare it to a self-driving car doing the same thing but with much better reaction time and you'll realize how dumb these scenarios designed to stir uncertainty in new technology are.

>>57279793
Stay

>>57282154
>parking brake
smart cars aren't the same as regular cars, and 99% of the time will be propelled electrically. There's plenty of room for emergency braking systems.

>>57283595
AC motors can be stopped with no friction brakes at all. If you add DC electricity to an AC motor the motor will seize up and rather quickly slow to a stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_injection_braking

It would not be pleasant at all if you were in a car when this happened but it's probably preferable to either of the valid "solutions" here.

File: Untitled.png (35KB, 157x328px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 157x328px

>>57279793
fuck normies

>>57280991
>turning 45 degrees at speed is harder than quickly turning 90 degrees

They're all niggers, so swerve, them swerve again

If you're investing in self driving luxury bullshit before good infrastructure that separates low speed and high speed traffic you should nuke yourself

pedestrians on walkways
Cars and motorcyclists on roadways
BICYCLES FUCKING NOWHERE KEEP YOUR LUDDITE EQUIPMENT ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS YOU RECREATING HOBOS

>>57279999
We have this thing called an autobahn. It only works at lower densities.

To keep densities low, invest in mass transit. We do not and should not need a four-person car for everyone one person on the road. SDCs are just the result of scaling up our current wastefulness instead of coming up with a better idea.

>>57281013
>philosophy is not fucking science

No, it's not. Flip them around and you'd be right.
Fuck's sake, one gave birth to the other.

Why would your rather expensive luxury vehicle take you through the rough part of town? These cars should have more sense than that.

>>57280957
Philosophy ends at egoistic nihilism turned materialism

>>57279808
You mean break through all the nogg lingering on the road? I would buy a car like that.

Shit imagine the hacking posibilites. Hack the car so it kills nigs, leave no treace so police cant arrest you.

>>57279810
The only thing worse than self driving cars is letting the average moron i meet every day drive them.

The car cannot drive into the innocent party on the foot path. The people in the road have a responsibility to check the road for cars.
The person not on the road isn't responsible for anything and should be left alone. >>57279817

>>57279793
it's actually very simple shit. neither humans nor machines can evaluate the worth of life.

the only thing the car can do in this scenario is to check if swerving to the right or left is an option and if it detects a person that could get hit, it just isn't a valid option so it goes down the list.

Can I stop in time?

--YES -> hit breaks -DONE-
--NO -> Is a person or obstacle on the right?

----NO->swerve to right and stop car -DONE-
----YES-> Is a person or obstacle on the left?

-------NO->swerve to right and stop car -DONE-
-------YES -> well fuck, buckle up buckaroos -> hit breaks to minimize speed at impact and mow through the crowd

>>57280873
Yes, that's the difference between being retarded and actual intelligence. Finding the smartest solution outside of the "rules" is smart, and applies more in the real world than the opposite.

The idea that you should only accept the options you are given is fucking stupid. You can always do better.

>>57280301
I understand the idea of utilitarianism, but they do have a point here.

If you're walking down the street on the sidewalk, you're doing what you're supposed to. You're where you're supposed to be, doing what you're supposed to do, and not creating a situation where a vehicle has to avoid you.

There may be more people crossing, but they're doing the wrong thing.

So what you're saying is that the person following the rules should get wrecked to save a bunch of people who ignored them, and created the situation in the first place?

Fuck that, the car should do it's best to alert the people illegally crossing to it's presence, and brake as much as possible, but swerving into the appropriate pedestrian walking zone is fucking retarded.

Granted, if the sidewalk was empty, then yes, go to the sidewalk, but don't kill the person doing the right thing to save the group of retards.

In several other situations though, I'd agree, go with the utilitarian option.

>>57280517
>and if the car is hydroplaning?

Then you shouldn't have be driving that fast

>>57280016
Safety v. Liberty.

A person should have control of the vehicle, but by extension it is their responsibility.

Also, sometimes laws have to be broken. I legally can't drive without my glasses on, but if I were in an emergency situation I absolutely would, because I can see well enough.

Same thing applies to drinking. Maybe you've had a beer or two, and somebody gets hurt, and the only real option is for you to drive them somewhere. Is it legal? No. Is it necessary? Yeah maybe.

Life is not black and white enough for us to leave everything to robots, and we shouldn't.

Something like this.

0. Follow all traffic laws.

1. If there's no action that does not result in injury do not act.

2. Protect passengers of the vehicle if the action does not conflict with the first two rules.

3. Protect persons outside of the vehicle if the action does not conflict with the first three rules.

>>57280306
The trolley problem is much simpler and is not being considered for actual usage for responses to real life situations you mong. A car has significantly more options. To break it down to two because "muh philosophy" is retarded. Only having those two options available in a self-driving car is NOT FUCKING GOOD ENOUGH. It should be smart enough to find the BEST way out.

>>57280414
This guy gets it.

So you got someone doing the right thing by walking on the side street and you have the option to kill him?

This is retarded. No one should die when doing the right thing, unless it's by accident.

Let the car try to break and warn the jaywalkers, if it doesn't stop, then it's their fault for doing the wrong thing.

>>57280616
>>57280517

Bruh, I don't think you understand what fucking hydroplaning means.

If you're hydroplaning you have ZERO control over your vehicle. You have no traction retard. You can't swerve, you can't stop, because your fucking car has no traction.

You wait for the hydroplane to stop because when you DO regain traction, you don't want it to be fucked up and suddenly take you in a direction you weren't expecting.

Also who the fuck is hydroplaning on a city street?

You are trying so hard to make this a realistic thing, when it is nowhere close.

File: unknown.png (184KB, 446x280px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 446x280px

Need fucking context.
>Car is uncontrollable from braking (hydroplaning?)
Then it can't control what to do in the first place. Even if it turned it would lose more control and have a more unpredictable path. It could hit more people or even another car, causing the same scenario to occur. It would go straight to maintain control and try to brake, shit happens and idiots die.
>Car failed to sense people on road
It would still plow through since without that information it wouldn't think of turning in the first place. Again the idiots die.
>Multiple people suddenly jaywalk in range of speeding car
Car would sense them and attempt to brake, still hitting them since they were idiots.

tl:dr it would stay on the road and brake no matter what

These "what if" scenarios are always stupid because they always add more exclusions to the point where it comes down to "one X person dies OR Many X people die". These philosophy faggots never take into account the multiple failsafes that systems have to prevent these scenarios from happening.
>all of the failsafes stop working
Then the car wouldn't fucking function in the first place you autist.

>>57279805
>Slam the breaks on

Spelling aside, this is the solution.

Watching Youtube crash videos, it's actually *amazing* how few people even hit the brakes. And of those who do hit the brakes, very few of them actually put them on hard.

I think 90% of drivers on the road have no idea how quickly they can stop. And the amount of entitlement that becomes, "why would I hit the brakes, I have right of way!" is sickening.

>>57279793
Reduce the oil amount in the engine and rev it up so much that the pistons and engine heat up and fuse together. This will slow down the car faster than any brake.

>>57284525
As someone who's been in a pretty bad situation that would have been likely rectified by heavier application of the brakes, it's fear of losing traction.

Seriously. You're used to not breaking too hard normally, and so the idea of slamming the breaks seems bad because you associate it with losing traction, so you over/undercompensate.

Losing traction in your front tires is fucking terrifying.

>>57281025
Objectively the best answer.

I might be worried that this will cause a GENERAL outcry over automated cars with people refusing to adopt them over an outcry localized to one manufacturer.
We need people to actually adopt them and for them to become a legal requirement on the road for self-driving cars to become as twice as safe and as twice as efficient as cars.
Drivers will always be the weak link.

>>57284525
>not speeding up so they know you mean business.

>>57284586

>, it's fear of losing traction.

I'm confident that the majority of cars on the road these days have anti-lock braking systems.

>breaks

Why?

>Losing traction in your front tires is fucking terrifying.

Only if you're not going in a straight line, which is why the correct course of action is to straighten your steering, brake HARD, then release the brakes and return to steering.

Most accidents I've seen have involved one vehicle plowing directly into another. No cornering involved.

>>57279793
Stop

Stop before they hit either of the options.

>>57284599
Even if this happened every time there is a critical bug like that in the software, wouldn't it still be safer than the current method of flawed people in every car?
When a person hits a crowd of people you take away one car. When this happens, you take away millions of cars.

>>57284680

And even if they do hit someone, it's better to collide at a lower speed.

Braking wins. I can't believe the amount of click-bait around this issue, and not once have I seen anyone say, "oh yeah, just fucking stop". They don't even seem to bring up, "wait, why didn't the system look any further ahead?"

>>57280193
>pedestrians can't necessarily look at a car several hundred feet away going 40 or 50mph and tell that it's being driven autonomously
Why would they ever need to for any reason?

All they should think is "Gee a car is coming pretty fast, I probably shouldnt step into the road"

>>57282154
Why? It will damage the car or the e-brakes? So youre saying avoiding that is preferable to avoiding hitting somebody?

File: 1467699773446.png (984KB, 3180x2088px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 3180x2088px

>>57280306

>>57279793
A self driving car would never face this issue because it put the brakes on far earlier, or it'd simply swerve the other fucking direction.

Just for the purpose of the question though, programmed morals wouldn't have to deal with the trolley problem because most programmers would say "kill less people" by default. When it comes to pathfinding for a moving vehicle, doing nothing isn't an option. You go forward, you go left, or you go right.

You're dumb, your question is dumb, this doesn't have anything to do with technology. You just shoehorned memetech into a philosophy question.

>>57281679
>>57282154
>>57285237

I don't know what's going on here, but I've seen it before.

An "emergency brake" is for the specific emergency of having a primary braking system failure.

Emergency brakes only activate the rear brakes (or shove a pin through the drive shaft on some large trucks). Since weight shifts forward during braking, this is an extremely inefficient way to brake. They are also usually drum brakes, which aren't as easily modulated as disc, and the mechanism by which they're activated doesn't lend itself to sensitivity.

So, yeah, it's an emergency brake for literal emergencies. For all intents and purposes, hydraulic brake systems don't fail. The previously linked article is about a mechanical failure in the pedal itself. Unfortunate, but *stunningly* rare.

>>57280873
The best way to handle this dilemma is to avoid it. The best answer is one that kills no one.
No one is going to say to a human driver "you should have swerved into that one person instead of hitting that group of people". Trying to pick a morally correct decision for a computer is equally retarded.

>>57280873
Except the OP came to a technology board and asked for a solution to a practical problem. If you want to do some BS psychology thought experiment, go somewhere else.

>>57285310
Is the car being about to hit somebody/many people whike the main brakes have inexplicably failed somehow not an emergency??

>>57285310
>The previously linked article is about a mechanical failure in the pedal itself.
Self driving cars probably wouldnt even use pedals to begin with

>>57282154
Why?

File: fs3Lkmj.png (342KB, 394x394px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 394x394px

>>57279793
Eject the passengers and then self-destruct, as its failure to keep brakes working or to detect pedestrians has dishonored itself and its company, and it must immediately remove itself from circulation lest it fail again

>>57279793
It should go straight, slam on the gas, and start up the Dixie horns

>>57279805
>how will BLM ever recover?

>>57284178
>>57284544

>/pol/lution

>>57284525
First think they had me to in driving classes is speed up to 30mph in a parking lot quickly and then slam on the brakes as hard as I could. I had to repeat this 3 times or so.

Then we were ready for the road. "If you ever get into a bad situation, hit the brakes just like that"

>>57285409

*Sigh*.

The "emergency" in the phrase "emergency brake" refers to FAILURE OF THE PRIMARY BRAKING SYSTEM.

It does not mean that the "emergency" brake is the one that you turn to because you have to stop quickly. In fact, that's THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO since, as I explained, you have very little braking force and terrible modulation.

So, yes, IF YOUR PRIMARY BRAKING SYSTEM HAS FAILED then it is appropriate to apply the emergency brake. But honestly, you're probably better off doing something else, like downshifting and steering to avoid, because you're going to take fucking FOREVER to stop with the "emergency" brake.

Have I explained it clearly enough for you, or are you still somehow confused by the "emergency" part of the name?

>>57285739
According to the scenario this whole thread is based upon, the PRIMARY BRAKES HAVE INDEED FAILED

Save your SHITFLINGING for YOURSELF you DUMB INGRATE

>>57285794
>According to the scenario this whole thread is based upon, the PRIMARY BRAKES HAVE INDEED FAILED

That's not true.

>Save your SHITFLINGING for YOURSELF you DUMB INGRATE

No, I think that YOU need a little more of it. A lot more, actually.

>>57285739
>*Sigh*.

>>>/reddit/
>>>/tumblr/

>>57285810
It is true. Read the thread and indeed the comment chain you have replied to.

>>57279793
Turn left

>>57285830

>>>/tumblr/

Go start a blog to complain about how someone was short with you today. "Today someone didn't follow my behavioral expectations!"

Next you'll be telling us about your preferred pronoun.

>>57285842
>It is true. Read the thread and indeed the comment chain you have replied to.

No, it isn't. ONE guy made up a scenario about brakes failing, which is idiotic. Vastly more comments are about simply applying the brakes.

>>57279805
FPBP

/thread
/argument for all time

>>57279793
Stay the course, preserve itself and the driver and expect others to preserve themselves.

Those people shouldn't be in the fucking road

File: problem-3.png (4KB, 285x254px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 285x254px

>>57280873
Everyone laugh at the failure. Private business loves being able to think outside of the box if it's a better, cheaper, and faster solution, nobody in the real world cares if you used the "proper" maths as long as you come up with something that works.

This is why I got a 99% on the math ACT without ever having taken trig at the time. I actually had a prep book for it which quite literally said:

>Even though it says "the figure is not drawn to scale", it IS, because it has to be, for them to come up with these numbers and angles properly. You can measure it with your finger or pencil and come to a ballpark answer.

or you can go along with your bullshit "problem" logic like the cabbage, goat, and wolf shits, so when you encounter a real life problem you just go with whatever missing information you happen to not have and limit yourself. the easiest solution to the problem is the simplest one.

>>57279793
SWERVE
because the other people that cross the road correctly, are educated
So, white

the other one is uneducated, so it goes the wrong way

it must be a nig

S I M P L E

>>57279793
Stay, of course.

File: 6a0134880dc603970c016760ffb5dc970b-800wi.jpg (68KB, 800x556px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x556px

>He can't drive a car
>He uses automatic transmission

Nearly everybody drives manual transmission in Europe

File: 1477261239955.jpg (20KB, 171x166px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 171x166px

Who is behind this "le moral culpibility despite the fact that automatic driving cars will save 100,000 lives for every 1 they cost because of how FUCKING SHIT human beings are at driving" meme?

>>57285965
Being able to understand that these aren't about the actual situations pictured, and more about scenarios like "the car's software predicts that staying on course kills 9 people with 99.99% chance, while option 2 kills one person, who wouldn't have been involved by default, with 99.99% chance" is literally what sets the retarded subhumans apart from those of us with not double digit IQs, but I'm sure that in your little mental universe businesses love irritating autists who are unable to comprehend a what a simple philosophical problem is, and come up with innovative solutions such as "just use the brakes dummy", or "just detect the pedestrians from further away", because that's obviously possible in literally every imaginable scenario.

>>57284139
i agree

>>57279793
Turn the other way?

No one standing over there.