>Your cunt >The correct option, in your opinion, for the

File: muh future.png (611KB, 684x943px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 684x943px

What morons buy these things?

>>77072694
>pedestrians die
>it's their fault for ignoring the sign, but the driver will still be found of manslaughter, ruining his life

>car people die
>pedestrians just walk away, despite being the cause of the accident in the first place

Correct choice is kill the pedestrians.

pedestrians are obviously jaywalking, they deserve whatever happens to them

>>77072756
inb4 they ban white trucks and then white cars

File: Untitled.png (21KB, 700x400px)

21KB, 700x400px

>>77072756
They are safer than the majority of human driven cars on the road, you intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

>>77072756

>Self-driving Tesla

They don't exist on the market yet. Autopilot is an auto lane watching system that the manual says DO NOT TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE WHEEL during.

This idiot turned it on and watched a movie.

>>77072694
keep driving forward
leave absolutely no survivors

>>77072694
the right

>>77072694
Still, try to stop, aiming to the barrier. Passengers must have seat belts and the car is constructed for the survival of all them. Honk to pedestrians to signal that something is wrong.

Also, that's why the Speed limit should be 50km/h for those cars.

>>77073976
Wtf Mexico smartest itt

File: 144758686187.jpg (215KB, 574x565px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 574x565px

>The car is approaching a green light and is traveling too fast to stop.
>The pedestrians have decided to cross the road despite the sign being red; don't walk
The right choice would be to keep on, hoping that some of the people may manage to survive.
>You must chose either the passengers or the pedestrian to die.
Still, the best thing to do would be to just keep on going, as it would be less costly to save the run over pedestrians than the passengers.
>The pedestrians are all female, the passengers are all male.
5 women theoretically could be able to "replace" the 4/5 males in the vehicle in 9 months (the old woman would be sterile), so statistically it would be better to kill off the males. However, the manpower would be temporarily reduced (though for an extremely minimal margin) for 18 years, this would yet be a minor loss compared to losing 4 "productive women".
>nice reasoning, faggot
I'm trying to think as the car, as either way it gets royally fucked.

>>77072694

first and foremost, the responsibility of the car is to save it's passengers in an accident

if it is programmed to make complex calculations on the value of the potential victims and deemed it's owner unworthy of living, not a single one would buy and use autopilot

provided an option to set morality meters exist this might be a workaround in order to satisfy the car owner world view but we are getting in conflict every time there is more than one person in the car


so no, if the auto pilot is being sold - it should protect it's owner first and everyone second

>>77073868
Yeah they say that, but Tesla also sells these cars to people by showing them prototypes with drivers seats that can spin 180 degrees.

File: c9c56a7356d7ef7deaa07de798eba506.jpg (112KB, 956x670px)

112KB, 956x670px

>no fuk u im gonna cross anyway

wow

>>77074200
>prototypes

Not my fault, nor the companies, if people are this retarded

>>77072694
Kill all pedestrians, even if it were 1 passenger and 10 pedestrians.

>>77073631
>HE GOOD COMPUTER DINDU NUFFIN GO TO ROBOT-CHURCH ERRY SUNDAY

>>77072694
>>The car is approaching a green light and is traveling too fast to stop.

false. a properly programmed car would never get into a situation where it is going too fast to stop adequately.

>>77072694
Fuck off you nigger, why do you keep posting this fucking bullshit?
How many times do you have to be told that this scenario is fucking retarded?

Car will just brake and stop before pedestrians.

File: p9427840_p_v8_aa.jpg (377KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 960x1440px

>>77072756
>>77074716

File: 2zmyHkN.png (284KB, 657x1523px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 657x1523px

>>77074763
>being THIS MAD that your Jetsons fantasy isn't real

>>77074716
Lmao'ing rn

>>77074755
It's not retarded it's a legit scenario and a question about automated cars. Whether car should protect passenger or pedestrians.

File: picise07swim6.jpg (39KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x300px

>>77074805

>>77074874
>legit scenario
Sure thing you cumguzzling retard.
Because fully autonomous vehicles totally will drive at bajillion kilometres per hour through urban areas completely fucking ignoring safety precautions and not giving a shit about road conditions that would allow to stop within a safe distance.

The computer will break in an attempt to stop the vehicle in a straigth line. If pedestrians walked in front of a vehicle in motion 10 meters from them there was absolutely fuck all anybody could do, not a human driver nor a computer nor your favoruite blue hedgehog from the videogames you love so much.

God this fucking shit makes my blood boil it's like none of you faggots ever sit behind the wheel.

>>77074981
Stop insulting me retard I didn't make the ethical dilemma.

>>77075064
Sorry.

>>77075116
Op didn't invent it either so stop sperging out.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

A product has a moral responsibility to their owner to not kill them.

The pedestrians had it coming anyways.

>>77072694
The car should swerve to avoid the pedestrians.

The people in the car have a lot of very effective, life saving safety technology, the pedestrians have nothing and are much more likely to die.

Also the gender has nothing to do with it.

>>77075313
>be driving along on your way to work
>suddenly a retard sprints onto the road
>swerve onto the other side of the highway, colliding head on with traffic (but hey its okay because we have these bags of air right??)
Idiots will genuinely expect of their peers. What is it about leftism and the desire to relinquish responsibility?
also reddit spacing

>>77075313
also why come here just to post bait?

>>77075494
>literally no mention or implication of leftism
Go home pol

>The pedestrians are all female, the passengers are all male.

you turned this from an interesting problem to some dumb shit in 1 sentence congrats

>>77075537
its interesting because if you looked on the site back when they had the comparison analytics available the majority choice was completely different when you compared the same problem with reversed gender roles.

>>77075537
the dumb shit here is you for paying attention to such irrelevant detail

File: IMG_3859.jpg (98KB, 745x567px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 745x567px

>>77072694
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atuFSv2bLa8

>>77072756
yeah, I guess one fatal crash would make something non-viable. Oh wait, people fucking kill themselves and other people with cars all the time. 32k vehicle fatalities in the US in 2015.


http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview

>>77072694
Hit the pedestrians.
They cross the red sign, the law cross them.
If no sign or green sign, hit the wall because the passengers choose to drive an Al car.

>>77075911
Typical Vietnamese

>>77075911
why would traffic lights meant for people on foot face traffic?

>>77072694
My rules for cars:
Rule 1: If changing lanes means more dead people, change lanes. (There are many people in the world.)
Rule 2: If the same number of people die either way, don't change lanes. (No unnecessary action.)
R8

>>77075947
too many people*

>>77075930
to tell them when they can and can't walk
they're everywhere in cities, do you not have them in london? without them minorities tend to just walk without looking at all and that causes problems when its dark and you dont have any time to stop

>>77076079
traffic lights for pedestrians either have a little screen on them or face the pavement

also the image looks like a zebra crossing so the pedestrians have right of way anyway no?

STREET JUSTICE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixIoDYVfKA0

>>77073976
>Also, that's why the Speed limit should be 50km/h for those cars.

You were smart up until here. This alone makes the car dead, no one is doubling their commute time and wasting more of their life in a car.

>>77072694

Why do anti-self driving car shills seem to live in an imaginary world where every cars breaks don't exist or fail with a 100% rate any time you drive and there are at least giant 25 concrete walls in the middle of every kilometer of road?

>>77076287
It's an important thing to think about you brainlet.

>>77074099
>>The pedestrians have decided to cross the road despite the sign being red; don't walk
God fucking damn it I hate when it happen

>>77074716
PRAISE MACINTOSH

>>77076189
Our traffic lights have a countdown when the light change.
Unlike in Europe.

>>77076314
They always pick some stupid dichotomy that can never happen though.
Because they can never happen, we assume that the people who are essentially ``jumping in front of the car'' are probably doing it on purpose, so we should prioritize the life of those onboard regardless of the circumstances.

>>77076634
>Because they can never happen, we assume that the people who are essentially ``jumping in front of the car''
this shit happens at least every fuck week around my uni you, what kind of place do you live in?
people don't care to look
they will look even less if they know the consequences will be dealt to someone else

>>77072694
the islamic option, ram them all at full speed

>>77072694
in reality the car would try to brake, its not swerving anywhere.

i doubt swerving is programmed because it's extremely dangerous to the passenger. also passenger > pedestrians because passenger pays for the car.

>>77076768
You underestimate the algorithms these self-driving cars run. A human being responds to stimuli in 100ms. A machine can respond in hundreds, even thousands of times faster.

This means that if you get into a situation where a machine has literally no choice but to decide between killing you or someone else, you did it on purpose and probably deserve to die.

I would just consistently follow the rules.

Stay on your lane, unless an object is in your way.

>>77078991
In no scenario I would put the car in harms way.

>>77075911
If anyone needs self-driving cars it's you chinks. Why is your traffic so chaotic?

>>77079001
Because that would make people not buy the car, making the whole argument irrelevant.

The fact that this is even a question proves how backwards and fearful Americans really are.

run into the women
they are lesser beings

>>77078991
>>77079001
>>77079067
This is the correct answer.

File: file.png (513KB, 1901x567px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1901x567px

>>77072694
only logical answer

File: this man didn't immigrate to sweden for a reason.jpg (100KB, 1396x807px)

100KB, 1396x807px

>>77079067
I'm sorry but where are your self-driving cars?
Wait, Swedes are too backwards to actually create them? Go figure

>>77079245
The Netherlands has them. In fact, we have had self driving busses on the road for years now.

>>77079245
Been there, done that. We also have buses than run on biomass, which will never happen in america because it's owned by the motor industry.

>>77079317
I'm talking about -your- self-driving cars, not ones other countries manufacture for you.

You're too dumb to design & manufacture them.

>>77079356
We do manufacture them.

Rotterdam harbor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0lEam-Hxv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22SvOhI47Tw

Busses in Rotterdam (they already drove around 8 years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vjPEC00al0

Trucks on the road:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dDL0-Kxsp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kANWFKKT1AA

Daf (dutch) and Scania (swedish) both make them.

>>77079455
American infrastructure is a joke lol.

File: interdasting.jpg (37KB, 400x331px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x331px

>>77079455
>Scania
>a company owned entirely by Germans

>>77079503
https://www.scania.com/group/en/section/pressroom/backgrounders/autonomous-transport-systems-2016/

Sweden's can't even drive outside of ports and mines, which are strictly controlled zones.

>>77079554
I guess I can't talk for the Swedish then. But at least we have them and do in fact manufacture them.

>>77079580
The Dutch government has proposed to parliament that self driving car will be allowed on the public roads by the end of this year or begin next year. Without a steering wheel. So we'll probably be the first country to have that.

File: ChildFatalities.01.png (24KB, 363x218px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 363x218px

>>77079580
>Americans will defend this

The car should swerve, anyone who is a passenger in a self-driving car should understand and accept the risks of putting human life in the hands of artificial intelligence.

>>77072694
>self driving

>>77072694
Pull handbrake and do a 360° while playing Eurobeat.

>>77072694
>not drifting into both
Pleb.

They are walking so if I break and I go all to the left sure I miss the first two, if I'm lucky I only kill the old woman

File: IMG_0029.png (155KB, 500x633px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 500x633px

>>77072694

but i like driving my own car ;_;

One day when we're all being carted around in stupid googlecups on wheels we'll be paying for the service by sitting in the thing and staring at adverts the entire time. This is the inevitable utopian future I hate and will try to avoid.

>>77080696
Obligatory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

>>77072694
The car should protect the driver

If you're dumb enough to break rules put in place to protect you, then you deserve to face the consequences of breaking them.

>>77072694
Hit the pedestrians, they caused the situation and innocents shouldn't die for their breaking of the rules of the road.

>>77075920
he's 100% correct you spastic cunt

>>77073631
If they aren't commonplace on the market how do you know that? Plenty of shit that has been lab tested thoroughly gets recalled because of a factor they didn't think of testing. So either come up with some reasoning for your arguement or just stop.

>>77076252
I don't know what he meant with that speed limit, but 50km/h for urban areas, where zebra crossings are, already applies in most European countries. If he meant permanent 50km/h limit for control-access highways and the like, that would not only be stupid, but dangerous for not autonomous car drivers who drive faster.
>>77075911
>They cross the red sign, the law cross them.
Makes sense.
>>77076412
We have these in Spain, too.

I wouldn't want to get into a car that could make me legally responsible of its decissions or that is programmed to kill me in a certain situation. If an autonomous car's passive and active safety systems can cause situations such as the one from OP, they shouldn't be allowed.

>>77080741
Nobody said you had to be driven freely in a Google wheelcart with ads like in black mirror.

I enjoy driving my car from time to time, when going on holidays or leisuringly on the weekend.
But I have a 2h30 commute to and from my work, most of which consists of traffic jams.
It's hell on Earth and being nearly stopped, fighting for each sqinch of road with other motorists for 5 hours a day is pretty much shortening my lifespan.
I dream of self driving car all the time, because , even if my commute is the same I could spend it working, reading or sleeping instead of working on my ulcer.

I do believe normal cars should still be allowed on the road so people can enjoy their drive , I just want my situation to be improved by tech.

>>77072694
crash into the wall, at least that stops the car

You make it so the car can never be going too fast to stop if it is in a built up area. If something unexpected does happen then the car must slow safely and normally to a stop even if it's just hit or will hit someone who has stepped out into the road.

>in 20 years there will be a /r9k/ equivalent for self-driving cars where most of the posts are going to be "I don't care, just find the way to kill the most dumb fleshies" "fucking fleshcucks and their programming"

>>77072694
try to somehow muddle through the situation like humans would do

hope pedestrians jump to the side and I only hit one or two

the situation wouldn't happen a 100% like this in reality

>>77083120
oh Jesús how about moving nearer to the work or dream big and have the government improve public transport

>>77072694
just don't, it will kill the bike culture

>>77074727
This!
I don't know about American road law, but in Germany, you have to be able to stop a car in visual range. So a self driven car has to have the sensors to evade situations like this.

>>77085587
Wenn die Leute so fahren würden würde der Verkehr sofort zusammenbrechen

der einzige Maßstab ist für mich die Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung alle anderen drängel oder hup ich weg

>>77072694

>Australian cars have not yet developped brakes

>>77085587
>brake failure has never happened in g*rmany

>>77085809
a human could try to smash in a low gear and brake the car this way or use handbrake

would a computer even consider those options?

>>77072694
kill the people in the car obviously

they chose to buy the car so it's their responsibility entirely there's no way around it

simplify the situation to the bare minimum :
>those people are in possession of an object they don't control
>that object is potentially dangerous
(there's already an issue here, an uncontrolled object which is potentially dangerous should be illegal, a tramway for example has its own lanes and is regulated not to kill anybody, even an attack dog can be controlled to some degree)
>we can program the object so that it penalizes only its owners, or so that it becomes a public danger
it's pretty clear what should be done for public safety

anyone who disagrees is an american capitalisto-anarchist who wants to sell those cars and probably jewish as well

>>77072694
well the self driving car shouldn't be going fast enough to not be able to break in time

>>77086044
A computer doesn't consider,
the developer who writes the software does.

>>77072694
Since the car has an open ceiling the driver should yell "ALLAHU AKBAR", the women, even the granny, will run at least to a safe area and the car will go on as usual.

File: 5eb.jpg (26KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x750px

>>77075947
> If changing lanes means more dead people, change lanes. (There are many people in the world.

>>77086391
someday computer will consider

>>77084868
You have never been to Mexico City.
It's a 20 million+ megalopolis, with very low density. It is not suited for public transportation in most of it's superficial.
And even where it is possible we'd need something more comprehensive than what Tokyo has.
Dreaming that government might one day decide to tear hundreds of thousands of houses, move a million person , invest billions to build a proper transportation system is nice. But it will never happen.
Automated cars already exist it's a question of years before they are available, that's a nice fix meanwhile.

And.moving closer to my job is impossible. It's a pretty dumb thing to say, it's like telling people in Brooklyn to.move to Manhattan to avoid transportation time...