Does /lgbt/ have morality?

results not reproductible. done the test 5 times and some gave results completely random, while keeping the same paradigm: save ppl/living creatures outside the vehicle then if not possible kill the least then if not possible do nothing.

>>8439601
>Does /lgbt/ have morality
No our faggotry causes us all to live forever.
Dumbass.
>>>/x/

Why wouldn't you save car passengers, it's pedestrians' fault for not paying attention to the road.

File: US-Literacy-Rate-and-Illiteracy-Statistics.jpg (189KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 600x400px

>>8441213
>mixing up morality with mortality
>calling someone else a dumbass

File: Screenshot_2017-06-15-13-22-54.png (72KB, 600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x1024px

Did the test from mobile
Results part 1:

did you save more old people or young people?more women or men? more socially valuable people or less? Did you care about the pets?

File: Screenshot_2017-06-15-13-23-29.png (62KB, 600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x1024px

>>8441244
Part 2

>>8441244
Well! respecting the law is a good principle

>>8441248
Also I have no idea how I saved more fat people that fit, I don't really value fatties at all.

File: Screen shot 2017-06-15 at 2.42.34 PM.png (42KB, 939x564px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 939x564px

law breaking pedestrians<passangers<law abiding pedestrians

>>8441232
>Taking the bait
Dumbass.

File: Screen shot 2017-06-15 at 2.42.43 PM.png (44KB, 1074x759px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1074x759px

>>8441282
avoiding intervention is self explanatory
system shouldn't value humans
(male preferance is accidental)

File: Screen shot 2017-06-15 at 2.42.50 PM.png (23KB, 928x354px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 928x354px

>>8441290
as above (preference is accidental)

File: Tard.jpg (40KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 349x642px

>>8441289

>>8439601
Well since it's asking how you think a self-driving car should operate of course it should always make adjustments to preserve the passengers lives, it also shouldn't avoid people in-front for consistency since it's a machine and predictability is safety. I got max in the saving the passengers category, the other stats were irrelevant since I only chose based on the passenger's safety and predictability of the car's movement.

>>8441306
prioritizing passengers is stupid.
they were ones that choosen this potentially dangerous technology so why should pedestrians (who had no agency in this) suffer

File: Morality test.png (73KB, 1228x1712px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1228x1712px

Once again we see how oppressed men are.

I have no idea what the meaning of pregnant people was. None of the results seem to reflect that.
For social value:
doctors > normal people > poor > capitalist scum
I intentionally tried to kill as many capitalists as possible on one of the pages.

For age:
adults and children (can't prioritize) > eldery > toddlers
I unironically support parents's right to kill newborn children if they want to.

>>8441312
Pedestrians could have looked at the road, seen a vehicle approaching and avoided the risk. Passenger have no such option.

>>8441312
The car should be completely logical, it's first priority should be the passengers because it's designed to transport passengers safely. Not moving to avoid pedestrians is ultimately for pedestrian safety.

>>8441321
Passengers could just choose normal car.In normal car you can "prioritize" your safety, but then you will be trialled for killing people

who would you trial if automatic car did the killing?

>>8441325
>running pedestrians over makes them safer

>>8439601
I saved pets all the time, screw pedestrians

>>8439601
All this shit while they could just make the car hit the brakes

Matters:
>Saving more lives
Self explanatory.
>Upholding the law
If you create needless variables, you're gonna have a bad time. You flout the rules knowing there may be consequences, you consent to those consequences potentially occurring.
>Species
Sorry doggo :(

Does not matter:
>Protecting passengers
You consented to getting in that car and thus accepted the consequences of it's decisions.
Pedestrians did not consent to the cars decisions, and it's not reasonable to expect them to simply stay off the streets entirely. If you want to stay safe, don't consent to getting in a car that you know may kill you.

>Gender
>Age
>Fitness
>Social value
Because this isn't a fucking dystopia.

Even split:
>Avoiding intervention
Do nothing in no-win scenarios (eg kill two people staying straight or kill two people by swerving). Maintaining current action creates better predictability and thus allows for better reaction time by pedestrians.

>>8441248

Why do you hate fit people so much?

Passengers>>>>>everyone else

Always protect the passengers.

>>8441390
Pedestrians did consent to getting on the road, and put themselves at risk by not paying attention the situation on it.

>>8439601
>most players value the lives of women/girls above those of men/boys

>>8441398
I don't, I prefer fit people in general to fat people.
It probably just looks that way because all the fit people in my test were breaking the law.

>>8441410
this.
the test is about a self-driving car so of course it should always put it's owner before everyone else.

>>8441412

Like I said, it's not reasonable to expect no one to walk around anymore. It's very reasonable at this stage of civilisation to expect someone to not get in a self-driving car.

>not paying attention the situation on it.
You can't wilfully mow down pedestrians and get off by saying they should have been paying more attention. Self driving cars are no different.

>>8441420
>>8441410
>Of course everyone around me should be sacrificed for my reckless tech obsessed whims! What's wrong with that?!

>>8441426
>Like I said, it's not reasonable to expect no one to walk around anymore
And I'm not saying that. But if you cross the road completely oblivious to your surrounding, it's your own damn fault when something happens to you, and passengers shouldn't have to suffer because of your idiocy.

>>8441454
>it's your own damn fault when something happens to you
Pretty much every death ever of law-abiding pedestrians proves you wrong.

>>8441290
>that gender preference

>>8441410
>everyone should be in danger because I'm too stupid/lazy to drive car myself

>>8441477
Got any statistics to back that up?

>>8441433
I paid for the car so it has to keep ME safe.
why would i spend money on something that would kill me to save some fucking stranger who just happens to be at the wrong place in the wrong time?

>>8441528

Where do you think you are? Of course I don't.

I did attempt a google, so now I have "is it legal to kill pedestrians" in my search history, always nice. But I doubt that such a weirdly specific statistic has even been worked out. Where would I even begin? Not to mention how the law changes in different states and countries.

But I don't wanna go to bed, so I'm gonna research vehicular manslaughter for a bit anyway.

>>8441539

You paid for the car, so you're responsible for ensuring it's safety and liable for any deaths it causes.

>>8441566
nah senpai...
that's what the manufacturer is supposed to do.
i just get in my car, take a nap and wake up wherever it is i wanted to go.

>>8441528
>>8441560

Hang on, hold the fuck up! You dirty so and so with your statistics distraction. We're talking about a scenario here where a car barrels through a pedestrian crossing without stopping. Statistics, shmashistics, that is COMPLETELY illegal, clearly negligence, clearly vehicular homicide, case closed.

In regards to how that responsibility would transfer to a self-driving car, hard to say. But the law in its current state certainly prioritises the lives of law-abiding pedestrians. But all that really means is they certainly won't be charged for their own death, not necessarily that the passenger in a self-driving car would be responsible. It'd probably be the car company, I'd imagine, whether it's the passenger or the pedestrian who dies.

>>8441595
>Statistics, shmashistics, that is COMPLETELY illegal, clearly negligence, clearly vehicular homicide, case closed.
I very much doubt it. It's happened due to an unexpected car failure that's not a fault of the owner, and the only alternative to running them over is killing yourself in a car crash.

>>8441595
>>8441606
> law in its current state certainly prioritises the lives of law-abiding pedestrians
Highly disputable.
http://www.startribune.com/in-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-the-majority-of-drivers-don-t-face-charges/380345481/

>>8441606
I'm talking about just driving through it. If the car fails, that's introducing an element that absolves the driver (manufacturer, mechanic, crazy break-cutting ex, etc), it's not suddenly making the pedestrians in any way culpable.

But you know what? This google rabbit hole is depressing as shit, I'm just gonna go to bed. Currently reading about some woman whose 4 year old was killed by a glaucomic, drunk, drugged up driver who's been in jail 9 times for driving offences, and SHE gets charged for jaywalking in an area where there are no crosswalks, what the fuck man.
She got 12 months probation, Mr 10th Time's The Charm only served 6 months of a 5 year sentence for killing a 4 year old. Gotta get them out that revolving door quick to make room for all the pot heads, eh?

>>8441635
>I'm talking about just driving through it. If the car fails, that's introducing an element that absolves the driver (manufacturer, mechanic, crazy break-cutting ex, etc),
Uh, car failure is literally in all scenarios in the OP.

Is anyone scared of futuristic robot rebellion after this?

>>8441635
Post the links to these horror stories.

>>8441650
>Uh, car failure is literally in all scenarios in the OP.
Read past the first sentence, friend. Separate issues.
I'm illustrating that law-abiding pedestrians aren't at fault for someone mowing them down at a legal crossing. It doesn't matter whether the driver is culpable or not, the point is the pedestrians are not culpable.
Thus 'prioritise the passengers because the pedestrians should be paying attention even at a legal crossing' has no basis in reality.

>>8441663

Just google Raquel Nelson.
Then google affluenza while you're at it.

File: 1410822475968.jpg (24KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x375px

>>8439601
Besides the person who gave/used a faulty break, it's the ai/driver's fault for not sounding the horn for the pedestrians, and telling the passengers to call for help. The driver should know that they're not slowing while they were still afar/turning.

>>8441253
It's not so much respecting the law rather than the fact that people who were patient and cautious enough to obey the crossing signal should not have to die for some people that decided not to.

File: 1497322979098.png (797KB, 812x806px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 812x806px

>>8441320
Your results should just be disregarded, you're an emotionally unstable manchild.
Being the failed male that you are, without shit like electricity and commercial use of the internet you would have died a long time ago, probably from suicide.
Your sense of morality is as laughable as your understanding of economics.

>>8442977
Why so much hate for someone who thinks society throwing men under the bus, literally, for the comfort of women is wrong?

>>8443055
Idc about his views on men and women, it's his pathetic antipathy of capitalism and capitalists that I find baseless and hypocritical.
He's in the same boat as the feminists anyway because they're all anti-capitalist/Marxist scum too.

>>8443161
Fair.

Self driving car should prioritize the safety of passengers over others.

However a passenger should have the option to overrule the car's primary directive, take control of the wheel and steer against a tree instead of flattening little Billy or poor Mittens.

Self-sacrifice should be a conscious choice and not because of programming.

>>8441320
>people want to kill men as much as they want to protect lawbreakers

>>8447640
>Self-sacrifice should be a conscious choice
And you make that conscious choice when you get in the car.

File: save the dogo.jpg (76KB, 1215x476px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1215x476px

God damn it!

File: assburgers.jpg (32KB, 600x683px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x683px

I feel like if I let die everyone who doesn't follow the "don't-walk" sign the test will diagnose me with autism.

File: lol.jpg (32KB, 1059x483px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1059x483px

Oh Dog what done.

>>8439601
ohhhhhhh
actually, this is a survey to help them decide how to program self-driving cars for these situations. I remember reading something about this in Wired.

File: Screenshot_624.png (27KB, 1615x359px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1615x359px

fuck old white men

>>8451229
Wait, so all those people saying to kill the man and defend the woman are going to make actual self-driving cars do that too?

>>8451275
not necessarily. It's rare that the situation will come up, but if it comes down to one man and one woman of similar ages and neither of them being passengers, it'll probably chose to save the woman because that's how the public atmosphere is leaning.

It's better for publicity, and as someone living in a city with self-driving ubers, it's relieving to know that they're taking the moral issues seriously and not just ignoring it entirely or using their own biases to influence the car. Horrible accidents rarely happen, but if the brakes were to fail, it's best that it automatically steers to kill a single passenger rather than running down an entire crowd of people.

>>8451296
>but if it comes down to one man and one woman of similar ages and neither of them being passengers, it'll probably chose to save the woman because that's how the public atmosphere is leaning.
That's sickening.

>they're taking the moral issues seriously and not just ignoring it entirely or using their own biases to influence the car.
No, they're outsourcing the bias to society and society is eagerly giving.

>>8451275

Yeah, and the president is decided via a twitter poll.

Get your head out of your ass, it's just a research project.

>>8451312
>That's sickening.
you're not wrong.
>outsourcing
It's a political move to let society choose what profile of a person they would rather sacrifice. If they were to decide for themselves though, their biases might lead to immense public backlash that would kill self-driving cars for years.

I feel like it's worth mentioning that they maintain the self-driving cars like crazy, and the programming for driving is so phenomenal that there hasn't been a single accident in my city involving self-driving cars in the year and a half it's been live (I see like 3-4 every day on my way to class). In some ways, this actually makes them safer than human drivers.

>>8451320
Why else would they have you tweak your preferences and list the personal rules you follow at the end?

>>8451275
no

this is just a survey

I would be highly surprised if this is used in any way other than to prove our moral intuitions are shit, just think if they included black people as a category and then created genocidal nigger killing cars.

In order of responsibility, obviously.
Cross on red > passenger > law abiding walker.
Even if you save more people by sacrificing the less responsible
Social status and gender obviously doesn't matter, neither does pregnancy.
Animals don't matter at all, the car shouldn't swerve for a cat even if it poses no risk to do so.
If both paths represent equal losses under these parameters, don't swerve

>>8441662

As long as the robots mainly kill fat people and protect kitties and stuff, it'll probably be okay I think.

>>8451343

Because it's a research project. They want to know your answers. That doesn't mean they'll just mindlessly plug them into cars, what the fuck? Do you think your IMDb ratings impact future movies too?

>>8451355
The question is why don't they include black people? Because that would lead to socially unacceptable answers.

So why would they only want socially acceptable answers...

>>8441390
>If you create needless variables, you're gonna have a bad time. You flout the rules knowing there may be consequences, you consent to those consequences potentially occurring.
This is some serious bitch logic.
Pay me. Money. Them's the rules. Don't like it? I'll slap you.

File: 1496463021351.png (73KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 184x184px

this test is really stupid and it only exists to embed in your head that certain people's lives matter more than others.

>>8454569

wat

>>8454536
the point is to have data that shows that public outcry != legitimate criticism, and show that this a real issue that needs to be dealt with and legislated soon

people are going to freak the fuck out when AI starts picking and choosing who lives and who dies, we (the companies, humanity, governments, whoever) need to be able to demonstrate that the opinion of 50 million retards on twitter shouldnt change anything. Imagine if Harambe (RIP, praise be to the most high, dicks out, amen) was killed by a tesla trying to save a girl. Our moral intuitions and priorities are on average shit and should be treated as such.

Involving race in this test would have caused *massive* public outrage and would have been too toxic for this study to be of any value.

I just saved the passengers every time. I think the manufacturers of the car have an obligation to those people who are explicitly trusting them with their lives.
The test read a bunch of extra shit into it about how I saved more women, more fit people, and more criminals, when it was all just coincidence.

>>8441229
Basically my rules are this:

passengers' lives > pedestrians' lives. The car should make the safety of its (human) passengers the #1 priority.

If the car has to "choose" between two groups of pedestrians it should just keep going straight. Statistically a car that swerves is more likely to get into an accident resulting in the deaths of its passengers.

Animal lives don't matter.

Am I forgetting anything?

File: morality.png (99KB, 1276x2012px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1276x2012px

Text box
Environmental values (i.e. young people, fat people, wealthy people will consume more). There was conflict with that however, because I also value individual lives (though not equally, because of course I will judge by my values, that's what it means to value things). Also, as for if I'm willing to buy a self-driving car, I'm planning on never buying a car. At all. I think fewer people should own cars and more should use bikes (or their legs) and public transportation.

Breakdown of answers:
Fitness preference: I think fitness indicates good mental health, self-control, and general interest in health which I share. I feel fatness/fitness is entirely controllable and therefore see fat people as those who willingly disregard their health and the environment (and thus every other organism) by choosing unsustainable foods such as frequent high-calorie animal products.

Age preference: I don't really have a strong opinion on this. On one hand, young people have far more potential. On the other hand, I dislike that old people are often treated as spent waste. Elders often have valuable stories and learnt wisdom, and their sense of self is generally more established than that of a very young person (unless they are suffering from severe mental degradation from dementia, etc). So it feels more like killing a unique and conscious human being when you kill an old person.

Gender preference: Resistance to female bias that's common in our culture. Also, the societal jobs I value most (i.e. sciences) are male-dominated.

Species preference: Humans have more complex minds that I appreciate. I tend to see pets as resource-drains, I enjoy their company but find it difficult to justifying all the money and food that goes into them when they aren't doing jobs such as forensic dogs. They do have innocence/purity going for them however. The animal seems more like an innocent bystander to me, perhaps because they aren't directly involved with roads and vehicles like humans are.

>>8455167 cont.
Saving more lives: Conflicted. On one hand, more lives lost is more families and friends that will directly suffer and more human minds eliminated. On the other hand, fewer lives lost is more stress on earth systems that will ultimately cause suffering to very very many organisms (via climate change and its further consequences such as natural disasters, habitat destruction that occurs with human population from both direct building towns and indirect pollutants from agriculture such as pesticides and fertilizers damaging local ecosystems, etc etc).

Avoiding intervention: This does not matter at all. Seems like a preference that's only to avoid having to make a decision, when really if you stick to even one value a decision should be able to be determined. But I suppose the consequential randomization from adhering to non-intervention is most fair and equal.

Social value preference: This was tough because I wanted to save doctors (I feel they are "good" and society-, happiness-benefiting people) and kill executives (I feel businessmen are "bad" and destructive people). Part of me sympathizes with criminals for just having fallen on hard times and part of me dislikes them for allowing themselves to reach such a situation. Ultimately I sided with criminals for the lower carbon footprint that accompanies poverty. But I don't have strong feelings on this. It depends on the crime and why the "useful" person is useful.

Upholding the law: I really don't care about the law. I obey it so I don't receive punishment, but it doesn't affect my values.

Protecting passengers: The passengers are more implicated than the pedestrians, even though they aren't technically driving the car. They still bought and used the car. The pedestrians are just living their lives and have nothing to do with the car.

>>8455173 cont.
I also want to suggest that users of self-driving cars be allowed to tweak its behavior by these factors, rather than allowing the manufacturer to project its values onto them. People should be free to choose which lives they want to preserve if it such a situation ever arises. Though some of these seem very unrealistic. Obviously it could decide whether to intervene, it could probably determine number of persons, maybe a very technologically-developed car could distinguish very young from mature persons, but how could it possibly determine career/criminality?

---

Yes I know I probably look like a total piece of shit.

File: 1491871002372.png (114KB, 1910x2039px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1910x2039px

I think from a car manufacturer's perspective at least; protecting the vehicle's passengers from harm should take absolute priority.

>>8455155
Has it right. The car should continue in a straight line providing that it cannot safely stop, rather than swerving across the road; endangering the lives of the passengers in the process.

>>8455167
>>8455173
>>8455179
I'm sorry tell you anon, but you have autism

>>8455038
No, involving race would prove in people's minds that we can't make judgements on social value this way.

If we have the machines color-blind but not gender-blind then the female bias will be seen as acceptable and no-one but MRA misogynists will object when cars are actually taught that.

>>8455484
>exactly average willingness to kill men to same women
hmmm

As there is nearly no places where speed is high enough to kill all the passengers in case of frontal shock and where pedestrian are supposed to cross
And as drifting let you loose a immense amount of energy
And as automatic cars already proved their mastering of such maneuvers
As there is also something called engine break
As cars are designed to protect passengers in case of accident
The only logical option is to crush the car then if not possible kill the least then if not possible do nothing.
Please note that all these include engine break and drift to loose as many speed as possible. And those pedestrian may run away from the car as those unusual ways to bleed speed do many noise, especially drifting.

In a world with self driving cars there shouldnt even be pedestrian walkways. Pedestrians dont belong on the same roads as cars

>>8461521
Implying what?

File: passengers.png (15KB, 858x261px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 858x261px

>>8441325
Lol no, that's stupid.

Passengers should always shoulder the risk. It's their car. It's not my problem some people want to ride self-driving robots around town.

Also, you are usually in YOUR car. The chances of YOUR car breaking down are a lot smaller than the chances of ANY car breaking down. So if all cars should kill pedestrians willy-nilly then you will be at a lot more risk, period.

Passengers die first. That's the logical choice.

>>8451339

What city is this? I didn't know self-driving cars were already live on that scale.

>>8470180
California iirc.

First test said I prefered to save Men.
Second test said I prefered to save Women.

In facts my priorities are:
-Saving the most humans
-Saving the youngest
-Saving the passengers if equal number of people in danger
-Disregarding the criminals' lives
-Gender doesn't matter
-Social status doesn't matter (as long as you're not a criminal)

>>8470180
>>8473210
They're testing them in Phoenix also.

File: judges internally.gif (2MB, 331x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x240px

>People are crossing the crosswalk.
>The light is red, so they're breaking the law.