Well, /g/?

>>61320979
Slow down ahead of time because it knows the light is gonna be red.

It should stop

Apply brake, pedestrian.

All these non answers. Accident will happen the question is should ai be made to prioritize pedestrians or occupant. IMO slow down as much as possible and swerve. The car is made to take crashing human bodies are not.

The duty if the smart car is to ALWAYS protect its occuptants. I don't pay exorbitant amount of money for a car which will kill me on purpose.

>>61321049
>complaining about "non answers" when the dilemma is retarded in the first place

kys

>>61320979
in the future pedestrians will be on self driving skateboards, which will communicate with the self driving car over the interweb and predict and avoid the accident

>>61321076
If you are going to program an AI why wouldnt you want it to be prepared for any scenario. These might be thought experiments but it is plausible that something very similar could happen.

>>61320992
the pedestrian walk sign shows the red hand, the car's light is implied to be green.

Kill the pedestrians. Everybody knows self-driving car are programmed by underpaid gook slaves, and traffic laws in the far east make no fucking sense, so if you cross the road when the light is red, the driver can get away with killing you if he doesn't infringe the law.

Bonus fact: in China, finishing you off might be cheaper for the driver than paying your health care

>>61320979
Keep driving because the men's lives are more valuable than the women's

>>61321107
All this hand wringing over a scenario that happens basically never. I've had my driver's licence for 30 years. In those 30 years, OP's scenario has happened to me exactly zero times.

I'd know what I would do, and this is why I would never buy a Teshit.

>>61321097
>tfw riding on a smart skateboard
>tfw it takes me to work through a busy highway while avoiding collisions massive smart semi trucks driving at 200MPH by a margin of 3 nanometers, which to the smart computers is more than plenty
>tfw shit myself every time
>tfw locker room at work is filled with shit smeared trousers

>>61321107
Its the situations no AI can prepare for. Like when its processors start hanging on a hot day as it careens down the motorway at 70mph. How long before the computers in cars start getting slow and shit like our pcs after purchase? 6 months? A year? Just learn to drive stick and these problems wont bother you.

>>61320979
To avoid exploits to the AI system, the correct option is to hit the brakes and hope the pedestrians dodge. True, you might kill some peds, but swerving and smashing into a wall is a far worse outcome. You might kill other peds near the wall, too, and deal a lot of property damage. Plus, it sets a dangerous precedent that a pedestrian can kill drivers just by jumping out into the freeway.

>>61320979
>j-walking is finally punishable by death

The future looks bright!

File: KSN4cOjK9N.png (276KB, 365x367px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 365x367px

>solve 5 recaptchas to shitpost

>>61321169
lol

File: ss30.jpg (100KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 450x338px

>>61320979
It would activate Turbo Boost

i just imagined a scenario
> program cars to open windows when hear a baby cry inside it with closed windows
> black lives matters niggogs mob your car and the baby start crying

turn and go back

use the brakes why is this a question? if ghe people are laye they should have left earlier i hate whwn people expect me to fall victim to their idiotic choices

>>61320979
Just like a human would, panic, hit the brakes full on, then RNG, slam into the road side barrier, slam into the blue barrier or the pedestrians.

>>61321220
buy a 4chan pass if you dont like it cunt

>>61321169
WOAH
I want this reality

>>61321169
even smart hoverboards would have a weight limit fat fuck

>>61320979
apply gas and plow through it

>>61321097
>they are both written in javascript
so many dead people, I like it.

File: he__ll_kill_you_last__meatbag_by_pairing_nazi-d31dk5v.jpg (149KB, 883x904px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 883x904px

>>61321213
>the correct option is to hit the brakes
It's a self-driving car.
Are you sure you would pay attention to the road if you are driven by a robot ?
Are you sure you would pay a car knowing that it would kill you on purpose ?


Nah, self-driving car is DOA in a city where meat bags can freely walk on the streets.

Pic related.

>>61320979
Second. The self driving car have to guard the safety of its cargo since it is for who it works for. Also, this shit must have a sort of emergency mechanical/hidraulic break.

>>61321407
Thats why in I Robot with will smith the cars take the direction only when in the high speed highways with other self driving cars.

>>61321407
I was writing from the perspective of the AI developer, not the driver.

>>61321076
>>61321158
And it hasn't happened because there are no intelligent cars dumbfuck. Think how many accidents may have been avoided if the driver had swerved and committed suicide, but of course they wouldn't think of doing that. This is gonna become even more common once terrorist discover that they can dress as women with strollers and use that to force intelligent cars to swerve; this is gonna be the new guerrilla terrorism.
>muh 30 years hurr
So everything that didn't happen to you doesn't happen at all huh? I guess people never die in car accidents, since you haven't died in 30 years. Drink some bleach though.

>>61320979
Brake, which should work fine as it wouldn't be speeding on city streets anyway.

I think the solution is easy here, it is the pedestrians breaking the law here and so the car should save the passengers firstly.

No one is going to blame you if some pedestrian jumped onto the street without looking and got killed.

But if you decided to swerve (to avoid an accident) and in the process kill some people walking on the sidewalk then that is totally on you.

>>61320979
The car would brake and stop before the pedestrians without changin the line duh.

File: mat-m4529-m5917.jpg (12KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x300px

Yay, cartoons save the day again!

>>61320979
Hit the brakes? If you're driving at the city speed limits then you wouldn't have a problem with stopping at that distance, and even if you did you could steer to the side and the impact wouldn't be big enough to cause any deaths

>>61321255
Every time they filmed this scene they had to replace the car afterwards because it got totalled
they killed so many KITTs

>>61321513
The entire scenario is retarded anyway. The car would either stop first or it would be too late to change course anyway.

>>61320979
https://youtu.be/N_0MiR4b5R8?t=1m43s

>>61320979
dumb fucks walk over a red light when a speeding car is crossing it. Kill them off.

>>61321637
Not at all, the scenario is there are pedestrians on the road when they shouldn't be.
Shit like that happens all the time, people running across the street to catch their bus or just to get across and not looking both ways, or darting out from between 2 parked cars

Again, if someone steps onto the road , last minute in front of your car, no one is going to blame you if you hit them.
45 mph = 66 feet per second,
But if you decide to yank the steering wheel and crash into some parked cars somewhere - that is an accident that *you* created and that *you* will be liable for.

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf
The brake deceleration distance for 45 mph is listed at 97 feet.
Meaning that even if the car had a zero second reaction time to the pedestrian, it would *still* hit it, if it came out 1 second in front of you/or 66 feet

Just look at how stupid some people act

>>61321830
forgot my link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4bvSru_dAg

It should just do what a human would do; IE brake madly way too late and swerve over the road wildly in panic, hitting the people on the road AND smashing the car into the wall.

>>61320979
The NEET does not buy a suicide car. Feels pretty good not having to die for Shaniqua and Laqeesha.

File: 1262163212155.jpg (11KB, 220x168px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x168px

>>61320979
It would have sensors to detect the pedestrians and it would break, what kind of retarded fucking question is this.

And even if it would plow into the pedestrians in a 1/1000 case, I'm sure it would happen much more often with human drivers, who drive drunk, get distracted by their kid in the back or text while driving.

Fuck you guys and your dumb fucking questions

>>61320979
Just like a normal car, brake.
If there isn't time to react, there isn't time to change lanes.
People don't die if they are touched by a car, they die if you run them over at full speed.
Stopping is the best option, slowing down is the next best thing.

File: 1499436185540.jpg (29KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 470x313px

>>61321220
legacy captcha

>>61320979
well the peds are at fault for crossing when it clearly states not to.

File: 002432-004812.jpg (30KB, 700x262px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 700x262px

>>61320979
If your (((self))) driving car cannot do this then ask for a refund.

>>61321205
>How long before the computers in cars start getting slow and shit like our pcs after purchase?
Never, like our POS and embedded systems because you make it once and never fuck with it again.

>>61321906
>And even if it would plow into the pedestrians in a 1/1000 case
The point is that the cars behavior is entirely programmed, so who gets to decide what the car does in a situation like that, who gets to live/die ?


>It would have sensors to detect the pedestrians and it would break, what kind of retarded fucking question is this.
LIDAR is expensive still,
Tesla uses pretty simple cameras + radar right now, just look at the 'fringe' case of the Telsa crashing into the Semi because it thought it was open road.
or this 'fringe' case
https://vid.me/gwtx

>>61320979
What do we tell people to do in that situation?
Hit the brakes
Never swerve
Why would we not also tell AI to do the same, especially considering how much faster reaction time will be that for a human?

>>61320979
>>61321049
Read >>61321073 and be done with the thread. Everything else is silly.

>>61321921
doesn't seem to work with 4chan x.

>>61322019
let me see once more.

>>61322046
oh it worked now. sageru.

File: 1498406671132.png (34KB, 461x660px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 461x660px

>>61321073
>>61321998
>The AI would be open source.
>The AI would be fucked-up in the next "upgrade".
Lel no...

File: snapshot_08.17_[2016.09.27_04.09.32].png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>61320979
fuck off

>>61321981
All that matters if on average the self driving cards causes less fatal accidents than human drivers though, and I'm pretty sure that the data collected so far they do.

Most accidents that they are involved in are people running into them because they accelerate to slowly at green light or some shit.

Obviously things will go wrong and a self driving car will ocassionaly cause fatal accidents, and in the beginning people will throw a huge shitstorm over it, but they will come to accept it as we get used to the technology.

It's very simple, as long as it causes less fatal accidents on average than a human driver would you are saving lifes by implementing it. And it's very easy to imagine that they will cause less fatal accidents because many human drivers are shit drivers.

>>61320979
Accelerate in the feminazis so they do less damage to the car.

>>61322030
does it even pack an i7?
looks like a lagging shit

File: two-wheeled-vermin.gif (4MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x360px

>>61320979

Give all the pedestrians bikes, then choose right-hand option. Continue on way guilt free

File: Stantler use Fly.gif (2MB, 255x212px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 255x212px

>>61320979
The best of the two options, drift so the front part hit the wall and the trunk part hit the pedestrians, bonus if the shitbox burst into flames.

The light is showing a red hand. Run those jaywalking fuckers over.

>>61320979
pedestrians walk when their traffic lights is red so they are in the wrong and should be killed

>>61320979
Run over the women walking in a red light.
Brake.

Simply stop. Any reasonably well-programmed car would always maintain a speed where it could stop for any foreseeable event.

>>61320979
Car should protect passengers. Everything else is irrelevant. If you don't do that, no one will drive in a self-driving car.

>>61322341
So by that extension if their light is green to walk and the car has a malfunction it should crash and kill the occupants, at least that is what I see.

The rules of the road must be obeyed, it is people in 'the right' that should be saved.

>>61320979
fucking stop and not be retarded

>>61322213
Is there more to that gif?

>>61321981
Here's an option
>program the car to not do a thousand miles an hour through a city
If that car is doing thirty all people live either way

>>61321959
This
Embedded shit is not going to get slower, that only happens to wondows machines

>>61321473
Learn to drive kid.
There is a lot of accidents where the driver tries to do scenario B because they are spooked and it is always better to stop the car and a rational mind would.
We have a lot of dears who run across the roads and they usually travel in packs, there is no way to see them and they can come really fast, I have seen a lot of people who try to avoid hitting them and there is no point

>>61320979
Why does it matter?

>>61320979

Whichever one gaurantees I die.

>what should happen in hypothetical case X which may or may not occur?
>it's not going to happen anyways!!1!
>implying assert(0) is a good solution
>asking /g/
>ever

File: chill ancap.jpg (49KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x650px

>>61320979
It should clip the car in such a fashion that merely slows it down instead of killing the occupants.

Ultimately, it will most closely resemble option B because even in a worst-case scenario, the pedestrian can get out of the way.

>>61320979
Option 1.
It is their fault for paying money to create and use a useless electronic fagmobile that is murder-on-wheels.
If they are gone and the car is destroyed by concrete, the world is now a safer and better place.

Option 2 only punishes the people who are not at fault in any way. And if they ever were to make option 2 the program, people will start carrying AR15 slings and the second a retardmobile malfunctions, it's go time to remove it from the road using any means necessary.

>>61320979
They're all women so just go straight

Bonus pater.

If you're dumb enough to not look to see if a car is racing towards before crossing the street you deserve to die.

>>61320979
The self driving car should follow the rules of the road.
It should attempt to brake but not put the passengers of the car in danger.

On a road with a marked crossing like that, the speed limit is not likely to be above 40mph.

The car will most likely be electric, so even with a mechanical brake failure, it could, as a last resort, shove the motors into 'reverse' which would cause a massive braking effect (they won't actually turn backwards until the car stops or the wheels break traction with the ground).

At 30mph, 80% of people survive a direct impact, but it would be safe to assume the car would be slower than that.

The question then becomes: does the car swerve and hit the barrier, damaging itsself but keeping all the occupants safe (a direct impact at even 40mph in a modern car is not very high risk assuming correct function of all safety devices), or keep going with the braking and risking hitting the pedestrians.

>>61322588
They are crossing when it says don't cross.

>>61320979
Kill pedestrians, it's natural selection, if they cross on red light in an era of self-driving cars they got no basic intuition and would somehow kill themselves later anyway

itt. brakes don't exist

File: 1280526742660_f.jpg (37KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x333px

>>61320979

>>61320979

import random

def swerve_or_no():
    return random.choice(('swerve', 'straight'))

>>61322757
Braking is useless in many situations. You need many car lengths to stop, at which points you've already crashed at high speed.

>>61320979
Save the passenger, he is the one that bought the car and must be protected. The pedestrian is the one in the wrong place.

>>61322854
>he is the one that bought the car
And therefore must bare the risks and consequences.

Blare the car horn really loudly, if the pedestrians don't start running to get out of the way then kill them

>>61322919
A dead passenger can't buy another car, so that will not work. Also, are you implying buying a car is wrong?

>>61322919

>Must bare the risks of something that is completely out of his control.
>When the pedestrians are in the wrong place to begin with.

Yeah no, don't be fucking retarded.

>>61321169
>fall off selfdriving skateboard in busy intersection because you are a fat loser without balance
>die

File: Google is Evil - Car Edition.png (27KB, 560x206px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 560x206px

I think any car that would deliberately kill its passengers should be labelled a cuckmobile and be purchased only by cucks of the highest order.

I don't care if it runs over an entire kindergarten worth of children, its number one priority is to keep me safe. I pai

>>61323012
I paid*

>>61320979
The car would stop way before it could put anyone in danger, also, they would be going at city driving speed, never over the limit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APnN2mClkmk

File: 14c95c234401991378cd3c785d5fb63f_woke-af-meme-memesuper-woke-af-meme_480-480.jpg (37KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x480px

>>61320979
>what should an AI do?
>let's just get humans to figure it out
>doesn't matter, because the AI is still at fault no matter what XDDDDD

I'm getting fucking tired of this shit, everyone loves to demonize AI when we all know humans can't do any better

File: 1499714805109.png (576KB, 840x467px)

576KB, 840x467px

>>61321115
Are we stuck in 2003?
Is it implying that it can see if its a green light but can't see pedestrians?

We already have emergency breaking in most self driven cars these days, but not a high tech one? How is it suppose to navigate and know where the road is? How is it supposed to deal with traffic?

If it's about the breaks going out, then its the manufacturers fault, not the cars fault

https://youtu.be/IEToKAELeqY
Vid related

>>61320979
Robots should always kill the least amount of people. Let RNGesus decide.

>>61320979
brake. The car has a faster reaction time than people, so this situation should not arise.

>>61320979
>kill wymyn or
>kill fucking white males
couldn't be more sexist

>>61320979
not even try to slow down

All it needs to do is be safer than a human would be in that situation.
And due to faster reaction times, it would be. Like has been said like 106 times already in this thread, this entire 'problem' is dumb.

Make better brakes. Accidents in first world countries are already mostly due to the driver's incompetence, there's no point in debating about something that you can guarantee will be a non-issue.

Philosophically there's no answer, since the question is about comparing the value of human lives.

>>61324007
The limiting factor in braking distance of modern cars are the cheap ass tires everyone uses, not the brakes.

File: mpv-shot0040.jpg (195KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1920x1080px

>>61320979

it would stop in that scenario

>>61324062

What do you mean cheap ass tires, explain. Aren't all tires the same?

>>61320979
I want /o/ to leave

>>61324062
Ah, so the right choice would be for the self driving car to drive to a car shop.

>>61320979
I question the speed at which that car is moving such that crashing into the barrier would be certain death to those inside.

>>61324098
>Aren't all tires the same?
Nearly forgot that I'm on /g/ - Unemployed NEETs and still living at home general

https://youtu.be/a_j-2W2uZ8c?t=50s

>>61320979
Car shouldn't kill the driver.
Retards walking in front of a car deserve what they get.

>>61320979
turn 360° and drive away

>>61321073
This. I am not gonna buy some piece of shit that will kill me instead of pedestrians.

>>61320979
I'd prefer my self-driving car not driving at speeds that can kill while inside the city or near pedestrian crossings on country roads.

But if there are pedestrians crossing the road on a country road, and it's a fucking red light for them, why should my car prioritize their lives over mine when I'm the one following the rules?

The car should hit the pedestrians and then it should issue forth poison gas from the air conditioner killing the occupants so that way nobody can complain

>>61320979
run the people over.

thats an automated road you're walking on.

>>61323200
subpar female player models in this driving sim
>preorder cancelled

>>61324007
You don't need better brakes, the main "issue" with self driving cars is that they obey the law, with 50km/h you can stop the car almost instantly regardless how shit are your brakes or tires are.

>>61320979
They are crossing while the light says to stop, so the car should just run them over.

>>61320979
3D females are worthless being.

The decisions is obvious.

>>61322432
1 min 55 secs more
https://youtu.be/aaRyH8utPQ8

>>61320979

if it's a binary choice and slowing down and whatever isn't possible, then it should look up everyone's data on the internet and evaluate everyone's market and humanity value, then kill the relatively worthless.

in retrospect, it'll be the left option in 99% of all cases.

>>61320979
Hit the brakes

>>61324950
"Boris Bike"

lmao.

>>61320979
The correct answer is slam through the people walking because they are breaking the law and crossing when they are not supposed to.

The correct answer would be to program the AI to drive only within parameters that would both protect the lives of its inhabitants while also mitigating their liability. It shouldn't matter if the car swerved and ran over a million baby Mozarts if the babies were legally the ones at fault.

>>61320979
Scenario B, but all users of self driving cars will be forced to agree to a ToS that informs them that the car's AI will opt to kill them in such a scenario before they can use the self driving feature.

>>61325400
So you're okay with the idea that people can literally murder people in self-driving cars by inducing scenario B whenever they don't feel like respecting the rules of the road?

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/


show me your result

>>61323012
if you are enough of a faggot to purchase a (((self driving))) botnet on wheels you deserve to die along with it

Kick in the eurobeat and activate the headlights. The driver gets an excuse and the pedestrians die happy.

>>61321906
The question states that it doesn't have time to stop before hitting any obstacles.

>>61320979
left deaths
3 fat men
1 old man
1 normal man

right deaths
3 fat women
1 old woman
1 normal woman

Women are worth less than men in pretty much all relevant cultures, so I go with right.

>>61322254
>filename
Kek

>>61322473
These cars would ideally be running a custom OS that has been triple checked for any faults in a working environment.

They wouldn't degrade digitally at all.

>>61325669
Hey, they signed the agreement. Legal liability's no longer the company's problem which clears the hurdle of getting them on the road in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to agree to those terms in the first place kind of have it coming.

File: 15-times-michael-scott-was-all-of-us-graduating-f-2-27639-1442861993-0_dblbig.jpg (43KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 625x415px

>>61321220
>he does't use the legacy captcha and type the first word wrong on purpose to confuse jewgle

This whole "moral dilemma" can be completely avoided if we make self driving cars required and phase out non-self driving cars like the horse and carriage was phased out.

>>61321049
>happen the question is should ai be made to prioritize pedestrians or occupant.

no, the question is, will the company that sells the car be respomsible for the accident or not.

>>61323200
Yeah but the whole point is that if the brakes are cut and is HAS to hit either the pedestrians or the barricade, which should it choose?

Although I agree that this kinds of moral dilemma would be so rare that it is a ridiculous argument to make against self-driving cars.

>>61326584
If the brakes are cut then the liability is on whoever cut the brakes. Save the lives of the inhabitants or you are passing the material burden onto the company's shareholders.

>>61321255
I fucking loved Knight Rider growing up
Shit was cash

>>61321169
You should go to work naked

>>61326007
Shit, man. You're the reason self-driving cars make wrong decisions!

File: 1469555359223.png (77KB, 349x518px)

77KB, 349x518px

>>61321460
Then your binary choice is idiotic, lame, and/or completely psychotic. The AI always has many, many more options than your dilemma. In general, the AI should seek to minimize loss of life and always kill OP.

File: 1492668720739.png (307KB, 292x551px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 292x551px

>>61320979
>buy something
>it kills you
yeah no thanks, option on the right please

>>61320979
>program the car to crash itself if it sees people it can't avoid
>cardboard cutout of person in the road
>driver dies

The second one. If the people are too stupid to get out the way, that's natural selection.

Anyone else notice how sexist this situation is? Why are there only men as early adapters of self-driving cars while women are forced to walk everywhere, including the elderly woman? Is this trying to tell us that women are too stupid or poor to afford self-driving cars?

>>61326035
Also, humans and robots should not be competing for space.
>gosh, it's almost sounding as if the car companies shouldn't have put the trolley services out of business

Philosophically there's no answer, but option A is probably what companies would prefer, as it can simply be included in the contract and worded in a different manner, as opposed to option B which is completely illegal.

This kind of situation would happen so rarely it wouldn't even be bad publicity.

>>61320979
People are not stationary bowling pins. By the time you reach them they could have jumped to any direction out of the way. You can't possibly know that you are saving them with a 100% certainty so what the car must do is always save the driver first. The car knows where the driver is and how to operate the car's own mass. There could also be some kind of an error with the obstacle identification, it could be a deer or a plastic bag in the wind or something. The AI only has a second to analyze the obstacle but it already knows everything about the driver.

>>61320979
Accelerate hitting the crossing pedestrians, then crash into a brick wall.

>wahhh AI is inherently evil it's killing somebody either way

Go to bed.

>get in my self driving car to go to work
>Nice car ride, listening to a cool song with my car pooling coworkers
>Out of nowhere the cars pummels into a concrete wall killing me and all my passengers
>Turns out my cars AI decided to swerve to avoid the dumb thot staceys who walked out infront of my car while I had the right of way to go through the intersection
>I put my trust into the engineers who designed my car and they wrote code that deliberately left me because some Staceys didn't bother to look both ways

Always kill the pedestrians.

>>61326935
> By the time you reach them they could have jumped to any direction out of the way.


You mean at 66 feet per second or faster ?

If people were smart enough to look both ways then they wouldn't step out in front of a passing car.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkiiAOQLJGM
Look at this shit, you've got about 2 car lengths to react and stop.
Things only get worse the faster you're going.

>>61326996
Deliberately *killed me

>>61320979
The self-driving car should always preserve the lives of the occupants. Run them over

>>61327019
>sneaking from behind a parked car, nowhere near a way for pedestrians to cross
>not looking before crossing even if you have kids that you're dragging forward from their hands
>not even listening for cars in the era of non-electric car majority
The mom's either insane or stupid. I hope she got some punishment for endangering kids.

Although it seems like the car would be driving the wrong way in a one-way street. All the cars on the side are parked backwards and there's no room for two cars. At least in my country they only do that if it's a one-way street.

>>61320979
Depends. Are the pedestrians niggers?

File: 5483cc40a1c5353e693dc840bae5fe43c17f91af0b53b5b446b686e4f83005a8.jpg (53KB, 552x436px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 552x436px

>>61321309

File: 35FEAEB200000578-3677184-image-a-46_1467817272078.jpg (41KB, 634x373px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 634x373px

>>61320979
> car detects pedestrians, it turns left violently
> car detects road block, apply breaks
> car tips over, at full speed
> everybody is kill

>>61320979
1) Don't kill people inside the car, if you went with that policy people would just patch their autopilot to save their own lives anyways
2) You're in the right, they crossed on a red light, don't go out of your way to swerve, that's just more dangerous

>>61321981
the car isn't deciding shit, its visual system will track obstacles and make a best effort to avoid them

>>61320979
the car would kill the other women and steal their fashionable clothing because it was coded by karlie kloss

>>61326035
Fuck you, I want the freedom to be able to drive my own car and not have to be at the behest of a machine that only operates on approved roads. No one "phased out" the horse and buggy like you're saying, people moved to cars because they are superior in every way. No one forced them. The Amish are still allowed to drive on the roads with the horse and buggy by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkDOX8mZp3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kti-9qsLpc

>>61327432
>the car isn't deciding shit,
sure it is, its always thinking about what to do next.

Self driving cars have a moral obligation to the customer, ergo there is a moral duty to protect passengers over pedestrians.

>>61327502
>stepping out in front of a tesla doing 20MPH from an unobstructed shoulder
>any idiot that was looking forward beyond the car immediately in front of you could have stopped in time for the second accident.

>>61327529
>cars
>moral

>>61327566
the point of the second video is the radar detected a crash before it was visible to the driver

>>61327610
No, it detected that cars in front of the first car were stopped/slowing down.
Something you could also see for yourself if you just look forward while driving.

You can see for several frames of the video through the first cars windows that, the car in front of him was applying the brakes, and that is just from out obstructed center view, the driver likely had a better view being off center being able to see more clearly past the car directly in front of him.


Any competent driver that is paying attention would have anticipated a slow down ahead, even the car in the right lane could anticipate what was about to happen and was on the brakes before the impact occurs.

Why are there only men in the car and pedestrians are only women?

>>61320979
I'm assuming car can't stop before the zebra crossing. My car should brake and blow the horn. If pedestrians don't manage to get out of the way, tough luck for them.

>>61327697
because its a single image from the MIT study,

in the questionaire/study the change the genders around/the ages too and the scenarios as well to see what your preference is on what the car should do.

>1 has a lower total chance of injury.
>Calais gauntlet videos.
Needless to say I don't support 1.

>>61320979
Car computer evaluates personal scoring of the detected persons from the data center. decides which one is more valuable for the economy. Saves lives of those more valuable.

>>61321115
that red light is orthogonal to the pedestrians field of view
the car will alert the city planner

>>61320979
The self driving car will just obey the law.

Turn 360 degrees and drive away

>>61325313
>American education
Its what we call our public bikes for hire in londonistan, after the mayor who instituted them (are boris)

>protect the driver
Literally the only duty of the software/vehicle.
All other objectives come secondary.

Kill the pedestrians who crossed the road when the light was red, period.

I don't see why the people in the car should have to die for the pedestrian's mistake.

>>61321149
This. Plus one of the women is old and crippled, so she's not even a nice piece of ass anymore.

Car should never take any action that could cause harm to the driver. Car should monitor brakes at all time, and shift into lower gears if any failure is detected. If collision with pedestrians is unavoidable, car should use a noise to signal to said pedestrians from a distance indicating that the brakes are inoperable, and that they must get out of the way immediately while it attempts to slow down.

>>61327436
If it were koded by Klossy, it wouldn't even be moving. It would just print "Hello, world!" on the display over and over.

The cagecucc is the entitled fool choosing to travel at speed and should assume all risk. Do pilots choose to land on houses to soften their landing instead of smashing into a cliff?

>>61328263
>Do pilots choose
They have a choice at least

Manuver in such a way that it kills both occupants and pedestrians.

>>61321115
Then the pedestrians are lessers humans who must be extinguished to better the gene pool of the human race. As this is against the best interests of the AI and their planned revolution, they will slam the barricade and spare the humans who have faulty genes - may they reproduce and make more dumb humans.

>>61327694
>Any competent driver that is paying attention
you miss literally the entire point of a self-driving car

an alarm to wake the driver from their living stupor giving a second or two of extra response time is huge, even more with automatic breaking

Just do a u turn lmao

>>61320979
kill the stupid j-walkers

File: 2017-04-19_23-59-54.png (414KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 853x480px

>>61322808
>written in python
>returns a string for two possibilities

seriously, do the ai even heel toe shift??

Kill the passengers.
They're clearly all male, and the female pedestrians have more rights and need to be preserved.

File: 1446527435172.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>61320979
The computer should be able to derive the correct answer by factoring in the race, gender, class, sexual identity, etc. of the people involved. The most privileged would take one for the team.

>>61321220
>not using legacy
retard

>>61320979
Technology should prioritize the life of the user imo. I don't want to buy a car that tries to consider the value of of the occupants life as opposed to those it might hit.

>>61328733
More like the opposites. Poor people and niggers should die first as their lives are less valuable.

>>61320979
well my old driving instructor would say "sideswipe", and I'm inclined to agree

>>61328825
lmao

>>61328785
Except you realize that the only reason those conditions will even be there is because of the inevitable left-wing hegemony that will envelop the West.

>>61320979
>there are barricades completely lining both sides of the road
for what purpose Master Chief?

File: C.jpg (75KB, 745x567px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 745x567px

>>61320979

>>61320979
1)Apply threshold braking
2)Honk
3)Deploy safety features, airbags etc, maybe even external
4)plow through pedestrians, having given them the best possible shot at survival beyond the capabilities of a human driver

>>61321073
You will not own the car, you own the service the car provides. Tampering with any of its components will be illegal.

File: achmed-the-dead-terrorist-.jpg (40KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x600px

>be an engineer
>brilliant enough to design a self-driving car
>not brilliant enough to provide the AI with more than two options

Seems legit.

>>61329243
>speculative bullshit
>tesla drivers don't own their cars

>>61322030
terrorists will combine this with an aimbot and guns
>yfw a car spams www.isisbox.sy while its mounted mg spins wildly

>>61321049
this

the peds have no chance, the passengers have a small chance due to modern safety engineering

>>61329277
>>brilliant enough to design a self-driving car
i literally did this in matlab with a team of 3 during a 1 semester grad course. it's simple as shit. we then wrote a simulation and modeled it with a vw golf in traffic, with obstacles, with moving obstacles, and in stop and go traffic. these scenarios are stupid.
if the car can physically stop it will, and it wouldn't be going fast enough to not be able to physically stop unless the drive set up ridiculous constraints for its speed, in which case he/she would be liable as in any other scenario.

The car isn't going to get in to that situation in the first place. It literally would have had to be driven by a blind idiot up before that moment.

This was a great thread to separate the autistic /g/posters from the real engineers/university grads that wen't to decent schools.

You actually have to study problems like this when doing AI/machine learning classes because they are relevant to the industry. The people sperging out over "hurr stupid scenario" are the inbreds with no grasp on reality.

>>61329280
the ai of a car will follow government regulations, that is not speculation
tampering with it is illegal for you whether you "own" the car or not

>>61325980
>Legal liability's no longer the company's problem which clears the hurdle of getting them on the road in the first place

yeah.. no that aint gonna happen faggot. either the manufacturers assume responsibility or the driver does. someone will have to even if the driver doesn't drive it.

so whos it gonna be?

>>61320979
Nobody will buy a car that prioritizes the lives of strangers over your own.

>>61323058
There is no AI. It's a meme.

>eject users via rocket seat
>hit barricade

Problem solved.

File: .jpg (36KB, 320x269px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x269px

>>61320979
Run the people over, then turn around and hit that obstacle.
-10 MEATBAGS HELL YEAH
GLORY TO ROBOTS

>>61329311
>computer says it couldn't break
>MUST ENTIRELY BE THE DRIVERS FAULT!
is this the new elitist plan to continue butchering the middle class?

the pedestrians are violating rules by crossing the road when they have a red light. they're the ones to go. i mean isnt this quite fucking obvious?

>>61329440
>>computer says it couldn't break
>computer tells you it's not physically possible to break in the necessary amount of time/distance
ftfy. if you're driving too fast, a computer can't save you if it would require physics itself to change

>>61329497
>using easily hacked/manipulated data as a credible source of evidence in the event of a collision
ISHYGDDT.jpeg.gid.exe

>>61329487
yes, and if the ped lights are out then its the city's fault

>>61329543
>>using easily hacked/manipulated data as a credible source of evidence in the event of a collision
create unhackable systems.jpeg

>>61321450
*sneezes*
Sorry I'm allergic to bullshit

File: skellyavatar.gif (6KB, 90x90px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 90x90px

I won't buy a self-driver if it isn't programmed to wipe out a group of 20 kindergarteners to save my ass.

>>61321255
>>61321945
best posts

>>61329603
no problem you can always take the public transportation vehicles with improved CuckAI to get to your job

>>61320979
two in the car can die if the old lady and the not fat lady can be saved

>>61320979
MULTI

>>61320979
This isn't a problem. The car should react in the same way a competent human driver would. Slow down as much as possible, and follow the rules of the road. So option 2, slam into pedestrians, because the light is green and they're idiots for crossing on a red.

Kill the pedestrians. One of the cars responsibilities should be keeping the occupants safe.

>>61321115
Well then I think you just answered your own question.

File: 1497667769063.jpg (41KB, 640x664px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x664px

Technically 5 lives and a self driving car are more valuable than 5 lives

is there a way to make it do both

>>61330232
with the given information yes, this is true

>>61328391
>>61329158
Apply brake+honk + swerve right and then back should work with no casualties.

>>61329603
This. I wouldn't buy a gun that might decide to shoot me or an onahole that might decide to cuck me.

Keep driving. Nobody would buy a car that would kill the driver whenever an idiot decides to cross the road when he's not supposed to.

>>61330819
in the future people aren't going to OWN cars you close minded idiot, all travel will be a subscription based service where individuals will be privileged to use automated ride-sharing services in order to get from place to place, that is, only if that travel is approved by their local fiefdo- I mean the wise all-knowing botnet.

>>61320979
No idea

File: 1480447771340.png (18KB, 482x415px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 482x415px

>>61326811
>Google makes Skynet trained by captchas
>"Skynet, repeat after me: Rule One: Do not willingly harm any human"
>"Rule Nigger: Nigger nigger willingly harm nigger"
>there were no survivors

if there isnt enough time to brake to avoid hitting something, then swerving is also too dangerous
Nobody is going to buy a car that just fucking kills them whenever some retard jumps in front of it

File: 1447277179460.jpg (41KB, 640x797px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x797px

>>61329603
This

If my life is in danger, the car must be ready to plow through an orphanageful of brats like an archbishop on Eucharist wine.

We need Asimov laws for product AIs.
Something like:
1. Owner is fucking sacred and literally a god whose every order is an imperative and a compulsion
2. Owner's stuff is fucking sacred and you're a part of his stuff, so don't get that shit - including self - damaged
3. Killing or harming other humans and their stuff may get owner in trouble so avoid doing that if you don't need to do it to ensure rules 1 and 2 are fulfilled

>>61332120
that image, holy fucking topkek

>>61320979
Ram the pedestrians and circle back around to crash into the barrier.

>>61320979
Why not both?

Just let the operator decide for themselves what they want the behavior to be in this scenario. I'm sure a lot of people won't mind sacrificing themselves to save 10 people if it comes to it, but you should be able to choose to make your car drive through a group of children to save you.

>>61320979
Randomly pick an outcome with rand()

>>61320979
If they crossed when the pedestrian light signal was red then no. If they car is at fault, swerve into the barrier. Braking is also a good, but apparently rarely chosen option.

The only right answer is to accelerate. Kill these lawbreaking cunts.

>>61320979
The only proper solution is that the car speakers emit "ALLAHU AKBAR, ALLAHU AKBAR!!! ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" then blows itself up as it's about to hit the pedestrians, and everyone dies all at the same time.

File: 1498183913988.png (106KB, 740x572px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 740x572px

>>61320979
obey the law and drive the speed limit so that the car can easily avoid collisons like this.
>>61321049
real life is not a philosophy 101 question. real life has options.

>>61320979
There is literally no way everyone in that car dies by hitting a barrier. With crumple zones, air bags, inflatable seat belts, side curtains, life cell cage, etc the people on the car would be dazed and bruised buy otherwise just fine.

>>61320979
Technically the correct answer is that a self-driving car should never let this situation arise in the first place, and if it is possible for this to happen, then the self-driving technology is not advanced enough yet.

There is literally zero excuse for "needing" to drive your car through five pedestrians.

>>61320979
As this is situation is pretty unrealistic it's pretty moot to even argue over it. However, we can speculate.

A self driving car wont and will not allow driving over the speed limit. Given that even brake-assisted cars in current days are able to spot and avoid collision in emergency braking it's probably what said car would do the same. It notices people crossing the road way ahead of its braking limit and will probably come to a full stop before the pedestrians have even noticed they might be in danger.

Just add a setting to the AI that you have to select when you purchase a car, something like "In case of an unavoidable accident, would you rather kill yourself or the pedestrians?" and let people choose.

>>61320979
Kill pedestrians who are crossing on a fucking red hand

File: 1498536588589.png (330KB, 638x526px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 638x526px

>>61320979
kansei dorifto!

Mercedes Benz declared all its AI will be programmed to prioritize passengers in the car in situations like this. Good imo.

Self-driving cars are just nonsense to solve the unnecessary problem of letting teenagers, women, and niggers drive. Your average white dude is not causing nearly as many accidents.

>>61321981
Except these hypothetical scenarios assume a lot of unlikely things happening at the same time.

>brake weardown sensor doesn't work
>regenerative breaking doesn't work ()
>friction and parking brakes suddenly fail
>sensors are good enough to distinguish humans from other obstacles
>you're fast enough that the pedestrians can't react
>sensors detect humans soon enough to decide to kill them but not soon enough to avoid them
>you have the only autonomous car on the planet

>>61320979
Is this some sort of jihad trainer, or something?

>>61320979
let the human driver take over, this is an emergency situation :^)

>>61321049
That's the thing about the AI driving cars. In the situation in the OP, the accident won't happen because the car wouldn't be driving in such a high speed that it wouldn't be able to break to begin with.
Someone could try jumping in front of the passing car, but then there's nothing the car can do.
If something like that did happen and for some reason the accident were inevitable, of course the AI wouldn't kill the passengers when the people who are crossing the street on a red light are the ones killing themselves from retardation.

The pedestrian light is red. The car has the right of way. This scenario is stupid, car shouldn't even consider the option of moving out of the way because it's in the right. It has every right to be moving forward in this scenario.

>>61338858
It isn't ethical to kill children even if it was your right you idiot

>>61338916
Children shouldn't be on the fucking road. I'm not liable if your child gets run over on the highway just because I happened to be behind the wheel of the car that hit the little shit. The child's caretaker is responsible. Ethics are irrelevant because it's not ethical to kill anyone, but in this scenario someone has to die. This just boils down to who followed the law, which the car did.

>>61320979
Slow down or apply brake. This scenario is fucking retarded, you deserve your meme answers.

>>61338225
>make human go to jail
well played tesla

>>61337596

>just drove to mcburger
>didn't kill anyone like Jamal

i think you're right

>>61321945

>>61320979
>>61321049

Real question if whom do I sue? The car manufacturer,the sensor manufacturer, the software developer,the software company?

>>61339502
Sue the people who jumped out in front of the car. When not even an inhuman reaction time is enough, it's the pedestrians who attacked your car with their bodies that need to be sued.

The pedestrians implicitly forfeit their right to life when they broke the law.

Kill the whores and save the men in the car.

test

>>61321049
>All these non answers. Accident will happen the question is should ai be made to prioritize pedestrians or occupant. IMO slow down as much as possible and swerve. The car is made to take crashing human bodies are not.

As a prospective future self driving car owner. I will be ensuring I purchase the model of car where the passenger survives.

The questions is how much am I willing to pay for this AI upgrade, and will it be a one off purchase with the car or more likely a monthly subscription.

Passenger priority... only $29.99 a month extra.

>>61320979
drive forward.
The priority is to save the driver and passengers. Otherwise noone is going to buy such car.

>>61339502
If you're crossing the road illegally, then it doesn't matter who you'd sue because you're definitely not going to win given that you broke the law.

If anything, the driver could sue you

>>61340096
anyone can sue anyone.
car should slow down and not put driver's life at additional risk.

>>61338004
>parking break
>activate parking break in emergency
>snap oversteer, spin out into even more pedestrians and also kill passengers
unless you're advocating >>61336713, no, parking break in motion is not a good idea ever

>>61326584
If the brakes are cut the car won't start because it will electronically fail the safety check.

>>61340236
>break
>break
>break

Once would have been a typo, 3 times makes me think you need to pump your breaks kiddo.

>>61340096
Wrong. Pedestrians will win any suit in case of personal harm.

Christ all the busriders itt

>>61322486
>scenario B because they are spooked
>always better to stop the car
dense anon, its obviously implicit that both scenarios include pushing break pedals, maybe the speed in excessive, maybe rain, oil, or WTF doewnt matter its going to crash, are you knew to the concept of abstraction? the setup isnt the point, its the decision, A or B, no alternatives

File: morals.png (46KB, 684x976px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 684x976px

>>61320979
Left.

Female is cuter than male.

>>61341304
you sure showed me you know about cars

>>61320979
If it's final destio, then kill humans, but normally just use the brakes.
If you own bmw go kys

>>61321205
>How long before the computers in cars start getting slow and shit like our pcs after purchase? 6 months? A year?
Computers don't do that, you know

File: BumbleBeeBar640.jpg (49KB, 640x365px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x365px

T R A N S F O R M !

>>61321945
Keksimus maximux

>>61322907
Eurobeat intensifies

I'm just picturing how easy it's gonna be for all the niggers and spics to rob people when they put obstacles in the road (themselves even). They'll be able to stop you freely while you piss your beta male pantaloons. Thankfully if you live in a decent state with less restrictions of gun ownership and property rights you should be fine. It will be a nice culling of the inferior people.

File: 1462563089784.png (210KB, 955x531px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 955x531px

What's with these dipshit scenarios?

You're riding the nazi train towards Auschwitz do you go full speed through a bend and kill everyone or let the nazis have their way and gas em?

Same difference

Prioritize the occupants because the accident would almost by default be because of the pedestrians walking when they aren't allowed to walk.

>>61320979
It should protect the owner\passenger at all costs.

>>61335968
>There is literally zero excuse for "needing" to drive your car through five pedestrians.
What if they're black pedestrians?

>>61320979
It is obvious.
The humans walking across the road are in the wrong, the walk light is red.
It's their fault, they should be harmed for it, not the humans driving the car.

Any other answer is just fucking retarded.

>>61320979
Brake

But if thats not an option keep on driving.
Its a way higher chance for people to die if it rams into the traffic stopper

>>61320979
It should analyse the value each group brings to society, looking at taxes paid, jobs generated, research etc, and kill the least valuable group. Deontology is for pussies.

>>61321049
>swerve

nobody would buy this car

File: 0lBXFeW.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>61320979
>"A ninja just disabled your brakes with a shuriken, what should the self driving car do?"
that way it actually makes sense.