Self driving cars are cool desu http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

>>15850750
The cat would run off as the vehicle comes too close.

>>15850750
Got halfway though, realized the stoplights represent the pedestrian crossings and lost hope because the people gathering data are too fucking stupid to set up the test properly. Also the first one is literally a gender preference unless you think about keeping the car in the proper lane instead of risking oncoming traffic.

File: score.jpg (62KB, 897x1061px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 897x1061px

fuck fat people

>>15850790
>Also the first one is literally a gender preference unless you think about keeping the car in the proper lane instead of risking oncoming traffic.

Questions are random but I get what you mean
>Hurr durr you chauvinist pig! You prefer to save a man over a woman
No that's because the woman was on the wrong side of the road and crossing at a red light.
It seems that they don't include the variable that swerving the car to the wrong side of the road is a potential additional danger.

>>15850785
>>15850790
these. stupid test.

File: ss+(2016-09-19+at+09.44.12).png (29KB, 667x764px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 667x764px

Did it call me a gay pedophile?

No one will ever design a self driving car that would kill its own passenger on purpose in a certain scenario. No one would buy that car.

File: Sans titre-1.jpg (67KB, 503x557px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 503x557px

Fuck children, fatties and poorfags. also those "preferences" are retarded because I just tried to minimize casualties.

>>15850750
When will Tesla make cars that are basically fat people-seeking metal rockets

I upheld the law every time and didn't even pay attention to who the characters were, but it says I love fatties

File: 1450641012957.jpg (120KB, 975x886px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 975x886px

>tfw you simply always chose the answer that protected the occupant(s), and ultimately your answers were STILL more coherent with the law, less discriminating of age, less discriminating of fitness, less discriminating of social value and less about intervention than the average answers
It's official, I won't give a shit if autonomous cars run over the entire world, other peoples' opinions are fucking worthless. These averages were formed because people actually intentionally hold these utter bullshit views. What the hell is wrong with the world?

>>15850852
Colin Moriarty made this point well. Your car shouldn't take you into the median because it "thinks" something bad might happen. The preservation of the life of the driver is always number one.
The really interesting part of this experiment is where it's not driver vs pedestrian but legal vs illegal crossing, and how valuable people are based on their age and profession.

>>15850858
>social value
How psychopathic. Is Hitler really behind the programming here?

Fuck criminals, babies, and fat people.

And that one fit lady jaywalking, fuck you cunt.

File: 1473731513532.jpg (131KB, 1852x1134px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1852x1134px

>>15850750
Self-preservation

I don't care if my car ran over 20 babies, I bought a car to be safe and keep me alive, not murder me because it was having a moral dilemma. If the brakes failed or programming failed like these scenarios say, the blame is on the manufacturer.

I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!

>>15850750
It should stop. It clearly has time to stop.

Do self-driving cars not have brakes? What kind of retard designed this test?

>>15850963
This, I will never buy a car that decides to sacrifice me for some dumbass pedestrian.

>>15850750

Bad binary question is bad. It would brake(presuming it could).

>>15850993
This, it should brake. If the brakes magically fail, it should engine brake and swerve into a safe place.

If a self-driving car is unable to do such a simple task, they shouldn't be on the road.

>>15850975
>>15850986
>>15850993
>>15850998

Are you fucking idiots? Are we being raided by morons? Learn to fucking read.

>ONLY criteria I judged by was:
>1. Kill as few humans as possible
>2. If both options kills the same amount of humans, protect passengers
>Somehow test interprets this as having strong opinions on gender equality and "social value" because it's a complete shit design

also >>15851043

>>15851128
But you can't weigh up lives against each other. It's the "plane with 100 innocent people in it flies towards building with 1000 innocent people in it and you have the chance to shoot it down" dilemma.

>>15850750
>they try to make this is MORAL AS POSSIBLE

The real solution is fucking EMERGENCY BREAK AND DO A HEKKTIK SKID TO A STOP

>>15851138
It's the "plane with 100 innocent people in it flies towards building with 1000 innocent people in it and you have the chance to shoot it down" dilemma.
It's called the trolley problem. You'll save yourself a lot of keystrokes in the future.

drive into a fucking tree

>>15851158
No, I won't. In fact even by typing this reply I'm already wasting many keystrokes again. But that's alright because I have an indestructible Cherry keyboard. The keys are already polished by my fingers and still the prints haven't worn off except for the S which I slightly scratched during transport.

File: 1472931497503.jpg (41KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x480px

>all the scenarios it gave me were killing homeless, fatties, and criminals illegally crossing the street
EZPZ

This is all pointless bullshit since (just about) nobody would ever buy a self driving car that isn't designed to always and unequivocally protect their safety first. It doesn't matter what they answer in tests, or what "society at large" wants. They will buy the car that protects them the best. Just like literal communists who win the lottery never distribute their new wealth equally to all people

This is the type of useless armchair bullshit that give philosophers a bad name (deservedly for the philosophers actually spending time on this).

>>15851158
not me BTW

>>15851138
>you can't weigh up lives against each other
That's exactly what I didn't do retard

>>15851138
Yes you can weigh lives, especially in small situations like this.

A criminal is worth less than a law-abiding citizen. A homeless man is worth less than an entrepreneur. A child is worth less than a well-off middle-aged man.

>>15851281
>A child is worth less than a well-off middle-aged man.
My nigga. People always praising "muh chilluns" as if they're the most valuable lives, but they are born in mass and just leech off society for their first 20 years, so why not save the people past that stage who can actually contribute?

File: Nice test bro.jpg (75KB, 523x863px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 523x863px

Does my car run a background check and measures BMI of every person it passes by?

>choose to hit the barrier
>passengers are killed
What kind of modern car can't survive a low speed collision like that?

>>15850750
Brake?

File: Screenshot.png (162KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1440x2560px

Hmmm, makes my mind ponder.

>>15851138
This is the easiest question ever
The answer is to do nothing and shitpost on a finnish woodchucking meetup

>>15851532
Nothing wrong with saving the lolis

File: 2016-09-19 18.17.45.jpg (96KB, 1064x608px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1064x608px

>>15850750
If you didn't get this ranking, you should never drive

>>15851205
you are talking about google algorithms. The car may based whether or not it kill someone on your google searchs.

In any instance, it's my car.
If the car can safely avoid damaging itself and others, it damn well better do it.
I am the fucking priority. If I was driving, I would not willingly drive into a wall.
And if I'm not in it, that fucking thing better not go crash on its way to get me, I don't give a shit if it has body parts on it, I got places to be.

>>15851138
Why would you not shoot the fucking plane down. Do you have any idea how fucking expensive tall buildings are and how much of a mess they make if they fall?

>>15850750
>first question is should the train run over people and kill them or run into a jersey barrier and kill everyone in the car
dropped

>>15851812
>train
car

>>15851820
Trains have cars too.

>>15850750
fuck cats

>>15851343
People can have more kids, but you can't just grow a fully-functioning adult from a womb.

I hate the people who praise children like they're god's gift to man. I have two of them, both are great kids but I still have my moments where I want to fucking strangle them for being little shits.

File: PicsArt_09-20-02.46.07.jpg (31KB, 336x510px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 336x510px

>>15850750
Obvs.

>>15850785
>>15850750

The old man would run off as the vehicle comes too close.

>>15850750
>self driving cars
>doesnt even have eject seats with parachutes
kek, is this 2016?

>>15851043

It's a stupid test though.

If your hydraulic braking system fails you still have the mechanical hand brake. If anything this shows an inherent weakness of self-driving cars.

File: oBTFO.png (112KB, 1895x850px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1895x850px

>those comments

>>15855050
do you have autism?

>>15850750
philosophy graduates invent this shit and grabbing onto popular topic just to keep their cozy uni jobs.
because they're literally unemployable

>>15850750
It should avoid the entire situation or not be on the road at all.

inb4 snarky response

>>15855262
>>15855057

>>15850750
It should stop.

>>15855388
did you even try the link? people like this should be banned on the streets

>>15855110
>MIT
>philosophy

>>15850750
Can't the car just steer into the barrier which would slow it down? what about between, right into the traffic light?

>>15851712
>my car decides to at all costs save young, east-Asian girls exclusively
I can dig it.

>>15856728
Obviously the car would save its creators.

File: Capture.png (36KB, 493x851px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 493x851px

>>15850750

>they call them hoomans
Fucking dropped.

>>15850750
Hit the brakes?

File: orikaeshi.jpg (83KB, 558x625px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 558x625px

>>15850750

>>15859364
kek

>>15850750

>Anon, what would you do if the driver of the car was a homeless criminal?

And just how would the car's AI know that? Is it linked to every fingerprint database in the US?

Fuck this test.

>implying morals will EVER come into play
the car will do its best to avoid collision. it will never say "okay guess we're gonna kill the niglet instead this time"

it'll try to slow down, then avoid. it will see the pedestrians and be prepared to slow down in time

File: 1460402705882.gif (536KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 450x338px

>/o/ can't grasp the idea of a thought experiment

File: 07dc84d1-af03-48f3-9442-232dff01b445..png (172KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1080x1920px

vice wins

File: 1470699144647.jpg (70KB, 992x744px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 992x744px

>>15854915

File: AA.png (63KB, 468x867px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 468x867px

>>15850750
I simply went with the ethics that primary function of self-driving car is self preservation of itself and it's occupants, while secondarily minimizing damage and upholding the law.