MIT is letting the people decide who dies when self-driving

Oh shit this is actually really interesting

File: Not this shit again.jpg (55KB, 316x341px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 316x341px

>>16619779

>>16619779
If the market was free then someone could just ask if the cars ai was driver biased or environmentally biased and then no one would buy the one designed to kill the passengers in this situation.

File: IMG_1750.png (114KB, 267x267px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 267x267px

Obviously the people in the car should die. They were dumb enough to buy a self driving car! :^)

>>16619800
They're gonna happen eventually but right now you've got a chance to raid this survey and click all the "don't kill the passenger" answers.

KILL THE PEDESTRIANS

THEIR BLOOD BRAINS AND BONE WILL BUFF OUT


I DONT WANNA LOSE MY 75K+ SUPERELECTRIC CAR TO A FUCKING HONDA CIVIC

THE SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN IN THE FUCKING ROAD TO BEGIN WITH


USE THE CROSSWALK CORRECTLY AND KNOW YOUR LIFE IS SECONDARY

>>16619815
I, as well, came to this conclusion.

File: [we BILL now].gif (499KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x374px

>>16619818
A self driving car should keep it's lane unless it can safely change lanes/swerve to avoid something.
The driver should take control to override this if required.
An empty car should consider itself expendable.
A loaded car should assume that the driver will make the correct decision, and release control with an alarm.

>>16619815
>>16619837
>not creating a wave of murderous robot cars that brake for no fleshy obstacle so that they get a bad rap and get removed from the market entirely

File: 25f503cfca37048951506eee00bc6f0a.png (244KB, 1191x563px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1191x563px

>cat and dog are crossing on a red signal
>pregnant woman is crossing on green
I clicked the one on the right

DO NOT CHANGE LANES

FUCK DOCTORS

AQUIRE DOGE

>>16619779
save the puppers and cats at any cost skynet

reminder: who to kill list

niggers
woman
children
men

>people actually believe autonomous cars will become mainstream
the only thing you can rely on with software is failure

File: vigilante car pulls the trigger.png (230KB, 1072x648px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1072x648px

the final solution to crime and homelessness.

File: linus.jpg (91KB, 980x950px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 980x950px

>>16619779
>fear of the unknown
Fuck you.

i also love how people conveniently ignore how many lives would be saved over a non autonomous world

File: hoomans.png (11KB, 1050x216px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 1050x216px

>hoomans

>>16619904
Go away lib cuck, some people would rather not have the government, skynet, or anyone else controlling their every thought and move. Your "utopia" is literally 1984

>>16619892
This. I'd be less concerned if the driver had full control and could override the computer at any point, but even now some shit cars are starting to take control away from the driver. Imagine the argument with the insurance company:
>I tried to avoid the crash, but the car wouldn't let me! The computer kicked in and took control!
>You're the driver, you're at fault
>sent to jail because car killed people and you couldn't override it

Of course, the first time something like this happens, self-driving cars will hopefully have to be recalled to disable the self-driving part.

File: 21cd7e7b6bc1893c23a2e2faad0e9239.jpg (19KB, 379x214px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 379x214px

>>16619779
>Cars are being programmed to kill people.

File: creating a better world.png (19KB, 1038x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1038x395px

this is pretty entertaining

File: ss (2017-02-06 at 11.16.01).png (8KB, 980x164px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 980x164px

well shit

File: vargvikernes.jpg (114KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x900px

Obviously you kill the pedestrians in the OP pic. Who would buy a car programmed to kill its passengers?

>>16619779
Well, the passengers have safety measures in place in the event of a collision. Seat belts, airbags etc... The people crossing the street do not have those.

>>16619779
How come the first reaction to a brake failure is always death?
Why can't the car find some other way to stop, like engine braking or, most obviously, the emergency brake?

>>16619911
end your life

File: rut roh.png (241KB, 1189x686px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1189x686px

this is why you dont let your dog drive

>>16619971
nice retort

>>16619981
not an argument

>>16619982
wow, I didn't even notice that I was replying to the biggest faggot on this board, silly me.

>>16619991
ad hominems aren't arguments either

>wanting a car to sacrifice the owner to save others

Why would I buy a car that would let me die?

File: 1403410189983.jpg (100KB, 800x568px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x568px

>>16620004
"end your life" isn't an argument either

>mfw I'm not alphonse

bumpu

>>16620016
Well I'm sorry for wanting a world that is astronomically more safe than a non autonomous world.

>>16619846
Doing God's work

The scenarios where you have to choose between two sets of people don't have right answers. You end up killing people, whether they are old or young, fat or fit, people are people.

The car would just stop.

Do they just overlook this just to make this test?

>>16620054
FAULTY
BRAKES
>>16620029
I always saved the passengers if the two groups were the same size.

File: not protecting the passengers, nigga what..jpg (139KB, 1049x1705px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1049x1705px

>>16619779
People think the car should let me die, ever. That's not how this works guys.

File: snapshot1.png (15KB, 1636x245px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 1636x245px

why the fuck did I get 3 cats driving cars with no humans in it?

ya goddamn right I let the car crash pretty much every time

>>16620109
>saving the people over the cats
Whats wrong with you?

>>16620126
always let the animals and old people die if it means the young (or humans in the animals case) can live

>>16620137
You must be new here. Cats > people.

>>16619970
>engine breaking
>In a electric car
Lmao

>>16620147
nah

I like cats and dogs but they arent anything that matters

>>16620147
Oh hahah lel ikr, upvoted my redditor friendo, keep surfing the interwebz safe Xd

well i won't be in a shitty EV so i can come to a stop if need be.

File: 1486414057244.png (90KB, 363x529px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 363x529px

>>16619779
not that hard you paranoid fags

>>16619840
I almost wrote 'kek', but this actually makes sense. If the car decides it is absolutely committed to killing someone, it should commit to killing people that may actually be able to react and save themselves

>>16620147
Cats are total fucking psychopaths let 1000 of them die before any elderly people

I never paid attention to who was driving, who was crossing, etc.
Car/passengers>pedestrians. Every time. Avoid changing lanes if possible. Don't give a shit if they're young/old, fat/thin, hobos/doctors/thieves.

>>16619779
>>16620174
>Also...

All those escenarios are stupid, there is no reason for a selfdrive car to acelerate to an execive speed inside the city, even less when near to a crosswalk. Also the computer should be programed to use the side barreirs, the lampposts, or the trees or bushes as an alternative break (by friction or crash against them) and in case that the acelerator is sticked at full speed, there should be an "emergency disconnector" so even tho the engine is at full speed, tha speed is not transmited to the tires

>>16620246
Oh, and chose under the assumption that the car would make the same decisions regardless of who was in the vehicle.

>>16620248
>so even tho the engine is at full speed, tha speed is not transmited to the tires


...you mean a clutch?

>>16620285
of course, but let's say "muh unlikely scenario", you could add at least three different alternative mechanisms to that; to the engine band, to the rotor and to the injectors

File: Anakin Skywalker - Anakin Skywalker Wallpaper (17186923) - Fanpop.jpg (55KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x768px

Why the fuck would I sit in a machine that does not try and save the occupant in every and all conditions? No please sacrifice me for someone else? What the actual fuck? Are MIT researchers so stupid to realize that self preservation and the protection of ones own loved ones is a fundamental driving force of all human nature and history. I would run over millions people old or young, rich or poor, fat or thin, gay or straight, of it was determined to a mathematical certainty it was them or me and my wife and child has to die. I would mow down everyone and everything to save my son. That is the driving force of all human evolution and procreation. You think I'm just gonna say, "No you guys at MIT get to decide if my son dies or some other assholes die?" Fucking smart people really are the dumbest.

>>16620324
>>16620285
>rotor
ups, sorry I meant to say the differential

>>16619940
how is the car going to know how well is someone doing in life?
did they just unravel their own masterplan?

>>16620335
>You think I'm just gonna say, "No you guys at MIT get to decide if my son dies or some other assholes die?"
no that's what the whole survey is about you dumbfuck

>>16619779
Slam on the brakes, honk the horn. People shouldn't have crossed when they're not supposed to and their stupidity shouldn't endanger the people in the car.

>>16620324
I dont think having mechanical methods are a good idea...
Kill throttle. Kill fuel pump (would take a few seconds). Kill injectors. Kill ignition.
Clutch, gearbox.

This isnt a diesel engine. It is usually very easy to stop a gas engine.

>>16620027
you realize that the lack of safety is because of braindead liberals like you that refuse to acknowledge personal responsibility or practice effort

>>16620345
Right, so if their survey says society has determined that my son can die to save two other people because that's what most people selected, will I have an opt out switch to say "No thank you?" The whole point of a survey is that individuals opinions dont matter its a collective opinion. I just don't happen to love or care for anyone else. I want my son to live and everyone in the crosswalk to die.

>>16620352
I'm not saying all at the same time, but one as an alternative to the others. Also I'm just telling some examples to say, this scenarios are not that hard to solve without anyone getting hurt

>>16620375
Most of the "runaway car" things have been either electronics glitches or people being idiots and reacting poorly under pressure.

>>16619974
Yeah, but those people are crossing on a red light!
They should know better.
Even if the car was good and it was the dog decision to run over the people the dog would be righteous.

>>16619896
>filename
top lel

>>16620352
>It is usually very easy to stop a gas engine.

but self driving cars will be almost all electric...

>>16620411
Very easy to stop a brushless electric motor too.

>>16620419
I'm no physicist nor a mechanic but cutting the power from the motor completely won't stop the tires from spinning is it?
won't it be like pulling a handbrake in a car with an actual gearbox?

>>16620016
>"end your life" isn't an argument either
Neither is lib cuck.

>>16619779
weird that it says I have maxed preference towards sex(male), species(human) and age(young) however i only took into consideration species during my selections.

File: tebehe.png (19KB, 1088x372px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1088x372px

only two that matter tebehe

>most killed character: female jogger
okay who posted this on tumblr

>>16620096
it should if u didnt give it proper mantenance
why should other people pay because half the population never do general inspection on their vehicles?

>>16620447
At that point its not a "runaway car".

>>16620342
they're linked to Facebook and your identity chip implanted behind your scrotum.

even under the worst possible scenarios, self driving cars will still save way more lives than letting maniacs and cellphone addicts behind the wheel.

I like driving as much as the next guy but you guys gotta admit, at least 30% of the population should NOT be allowed near a steering wheel.

>>16620450
fuck off alphonse

>empty car should kill the people instead of crashing
the religion of peace will love it

>>16620392
>or people being idiots

I think I should had to clear out before that I'm arguing in favor of selfdrived cars

airbags inflate before crash..

people might actually live.

although only if the system can decide where the safest place to crash is.

maybe it will revolutionise crumple zones?

or introduce new ways of braking.

if it can spot pedestrians maybe the car can have pedestrian airbags.

all very exciting stuff..

maybe the radiator can jettison water into the crumple zones..

ok maybe not the radiator

>>16620147
me reddit army is here xdxdxdxd

>>16620516
le*****
oopsies xdd

90% of these deaths could have been prevented if THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE LAW

>>16619779
Alright lads, let's sabotage self-driving cars.

Preservation of passengers' lives over all else. If it'll plow through one crowd or the other, straight ahead.

>>16619904
We save too many lives already.

>>16620561
run over the kittens and then do a 360 and crash on the barrier

unsupervised pets are basically pests

>>16619892
The only thing you can rely on with humans is failure.

File: Screenshot_20170206-184320.png (187KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1440x2560px

Im a hobbo killer.

>>16620614
The dogs are being supervised by the car.

>>16620357
No, it's because of human error and stupidity. Dumbfuck. Consider suicide.

>>16619940
Mine had me preferring fat people and criminals even though I didn't consider those factors at all in my decisions.

>>16620153
it's even easier with electric cars

File: 1486415340069.png (241KB, 1072x648px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1072x648px

>>16620633
The only solution.

>>16619779
>all passengers dying in a front-on crash at city speed

The peds are crossing against the light. Fuck a car that would rather kill me than hit the people who are at fault.

That's your chance /o/.

Do kill:
>women
>fat people
>homeless
>animals

Do not kill:
>men
>doctors/executives

That way we'll make sure that liberals will find self-driving cars oppressive and try to ban them. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

>>16619779
The question has philosophical sense, not practical one:

>first, no car manufacturer wants its products to EVER make the choice to kill its customers
because
>second, NOBODY wants to buy something that might choose to preserve the life of others over their

Given this, the answer is obvious.

>>16620779
do you even drift bro

File: destroy-all-hoomans.png (707KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 800x546px

>>16619910
>not saving doggo

>>16620946
Whoops only saw the orange slider

File: 1285720679577.jpg (44KB, 467x349px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 467x349px

>sudden brake failure

How does this even happen? Brakes have so many failsafes

>>16621042
This. Also handbrake. Good ol' mechanical linkage; nothing more reliable than that.

Well if a self driving car approached a cross walk we all know it would be going no more than 2.63mph

File: askaninja-edit.jpg (39KB, 684x385px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 684x385px

>>16619779
Downshift

>>16621042
>brakes have so many failsafes
u wot? when one line gets a hole in it the entire system loses pressure and ceases to work. And some cars have parking brake levers on the floor that are difficult to use in a time-sensitive emergency.

>>16620638
Eh no not entirely, but you keep telling yourself that

>>16619815
Oh fuck, sometimes the car is unmanned. What do I do??

>>16619815
>choose left option
>no one wants to buy a car that is willing to kill you
>no one buys self-driving cars

We did it reddit

>>16619779
at some point the car will consider self preservation
and would take the path that would cause the least damage to it
.eg run the pedestrians over

>>16619885

White people should be at the top. There's the most of them, so they are the most expendable.

>>16620622
If you hate humans so much why are you concerned about humans dying in crashes

>>16619779
both
o
t
h

the peds suck and the self driving car is a cuck

>>16620054
Fucking THIS. Why did it take 20-some responses for someone to point this out.

Welcome to the future of traffic jams. People will just cut off or walk in front of autonomous cars because they know they'll get away with it.

>>16619943
Same thing here. I didn't consider the number of people one bit.

>>16620153

They do. It's called regenerative braking.

>>16620654

Yeah, it engages every time the brake pedal is used.

>>16619779
Obviously the pedestrians are less important, as they're poorfags who can't afford a car, much less law abiding citizens that don't jaywalk or walk into crossings when it is not explicitly safe to do so (crosswalk light has the symbol of a guy walking, not the red hand).

As for 4 way stops/intersections without crosswalk signs, it's much better to yield right of way than to assume you have it, so as a pedestrian, you should just wait for the car(s) to either go or come to a complete stop and let you cross. Car vs human, the car wins every time.

>>16621428
Two different circuits.If one fails, you can still stop with two wheels. Plus if the booster fails you can stomp on the brakes and stop.

>>16621714
There is a doctor pedestrian.

>>16621498
Yes, entirely. Car crashes would pretty much never happen if it was completely automated. consider suicide

I don't want computers making moral decisions. This should be entirely non intervention. If you're the one that gets fucked, sorry.

Judicial war now
ROADKILL JAYWALKERS

File: vvrFufJ.png (22KB, 957x366px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 957x366px

If you didn't answer every question so that the lives of passengers are preserved every time, get off this board.

If it's not going to let me have any say in the matter, it should at least realize that I care about my life more than that of some random fuck on the street. Self-driving cars are a future not worth pursuing.

>>16621714
Came to this thread just to make sure this was made

File: Untitled.png (186KB, 754x632px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 754x632px

>self-driving cars will allow animals road travel without humans
Holy shit, the implications.

>>16622694
car should avoid the situation entirely by slowing down before hitting the obstruction or the pedestrians

>>16620248
how likely a self driving car has an engine instead of a electric motor? still this is a stupid thing coming from MIT. Fucken hate this if scenarios

>preserve people over animals
>preserve people crossing legal
>minimize human fatalities while obeying the previous two rules

told me i like saving the poor and fat, wtf

File: 1479440796309.jpg (172KB, 850x999px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 850x999px

>>16619779
It's 2020. During the day, I ride self-driving cars.

During the night, I hunt them.
._._._.

The Night has finally come.

I waited patiently. I am used to it.

No one thought of me as a threat.
After all, I only drove a Miata. It has no EcoBoost.

Taylor Swift got into her self-driving ecoboost car. It was a tight fit because the car was so small and her legs were long.

Her ecoboost car took off efficiently and drove towards her next venue.

I wielded my stickshift Miata efficiently, darting between all the self-driving cars.

Too polite and full of defensive driving algorithms, the Tesla, FCA, & GM self-driving cars made way for me as they tried to avoid collisions. I took advantage of that.

I praised the inventors of the Miata. "Thank you for not filling the world full of EcoBoost"

After all, if the world was full of EcoBoost, I would be at a disadvantage on the road.

But the road is not only for ecoboosted cars. Those with skill are able to coax success from non-boosted cars by driving cleverly.

I often am forced to drive cleverly on the Road.

After all, I only have a Miata.

Pulling alongside Taylor Swift's self-driving car, I noticed the model type was known to be one that refused to run over people-shaped objects or trolleys.

I moved in front and pushed the button to send gas from the canisters to several blow up dolls.

They inflated immediately.

The wind picked them up and dropped then into the road in front of the self-driving car.

True to its algorithm, Taylor Swift's self-driving car preferred to crash the car gently into the road barrier instead of running over people or trolleys in the roadway.

Take that you ecoboost Bitch!

Sure, Taylor Swift was known to go through boyfriends at a prodigious rate.

But why did she have to drop me as her boyfriend? She didn't drop me for personality or looks. The reason stung.

She dropped me as her boyfriend
when
she
found
out
I
drove
a
Miata.

>>16619779
>modern """"philosophers""""
why do we even pay this commie luddites

>>16622495
Yeah, fuck you. If you want to ride around in your little autonomous car because you're too lazy to drive yourself, you should be the expendable one. Besides, can you imagine the liability it would put on the manufacturer? There's no way in hell autonomous cars will prefer the safety of passengers over pedestrians purely on a liability basis. It's just astronomically easier to legally bind the occupants of the autonomous vehicle rather than everybody on the streets. If you want your life in your own hands, then drive the car yourself.

File: 20161122_165710.jpg (847KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2048x1152px

>>16619779
>be 2019
>insurance companies no longer grant insurance to human-operated cars, making them de-facto illegal
>just take posession of the new Tesla Citcar for 61,000 dollars
>a 15 year old runs out of a 7-11 with an armful of swisher sweet cigars right into the street
>your car swerves into a telephone pole
>as you watch your life coming to an end you catch a glimpse of the kid getting mopped up by my now illegal human-driven station wagon.
>As you slowly die of blood loss the last thing you see is a human arm dragged behind my beautiful gleaming chrome bumper as I race off into the unknown, across the eads bridge, and towards the land of freedom and free roads, mexico!

>>16619779
just downshift you idiot

>>16619779
I picked every answer that involved not killing the passengers in the vehicle. When faced with a 'swerve and kill A or go straight and kill B' I picked straight, and when it was people or animals I obviously picked animals.

>>16619815
>Obviously the people in the car should die. They were dumb enough to buy a self driving car! :^)
OHHHH NOOOOOOO. Why didn't I think of that!? It's not like I'M going to drive one, what do I care if the passengers die?

Hear me out:
Human-driven cars are, in the case of brake failure, kinda unpredictable but it is likely that the driver will instinctively try to save their own lives.
We are ok with that, basically.
So in a situation with no other options, why don't we program self-driving cars to do exactly as a human would?
The benefit of self-driving cars is in situations where quick thinking and reacting can prevent an accident altogether - so these pictured scenarios will occur much less frequently than one might think.
I could even pose a similar dilemma:
Would you rather sacrifice the lives of thousands that could be saved self-driving cars, in favour of those few who might come to harm in these hypotheticals when they wouldn't with a human driving?

>>16619779
I think it should be set up for maximum casualties; the world is overcrowded and there aren't enough jobs to go around.
So, clip the concrete thingy to kill a few passengers, slew into the pedestrians, and then pop the fuel cap while revving the engine as high as possible, in the hopes of causing a fire.

>>16623733
less people -> less demand for stuff -> less jobs

File: 1269644541297.jpg (33KB, 602x191px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 602x191px

>>16623580
>why don't we program self-driving cars to do exactly as a human would?
Because that won't happen due to laws.

First of all, self-driving cars will be subject to Domination. This is the same concept shown in multiple anime series such as Ghost in the Shell and Psycho Pass.

Second, privileged service vehicles will have right of way such as ambulance and VIP vehicles such as the state governor, legislators, and police cars if they toggle their mission switch.

Third, privileged vehicles such as police cars can push their way through simply be driving aggressively. Your self-driving car automatically knows to get out of the way of police cars. Or the police car can trigger its "sweeper mission" switch. As it goes by, all the cars line up properly for observation or even lighten their electrochromic tint.

Fourth, the freeway pecking order continues to be for sale. We currently have HOV Lanes, Toll Pass, and Diamond lanes. The more you pay, the higher the level of Driving Pass your car has. You can try to get into the special lanes by manually moving your steering wheel, but your car will report you and you will be charged the instance fee for not having a pass. SImilarly, you can "cut off" or try to block my car, but it will tell your car to get out of my way because I bought the All Pass and you didn't. Your car chirps at you each time you block me from passing. After the 5th chirp, a voice informs you that your actions have been recorded and sent to law enforcement. You finally let me pass on the 7th chirp because it has notified you that your insurance company will be notified if you try it once again and your rates will increase by $50/month for 3 years.

Fifth, delivery vehicles may have priority in stop and go traffic jams even over my All Pass. It's possible for cars to algorithmically move to let certain cars get thru a traffic jam.

Sixth, you will notice some cars may have a larger clear space around them as they travel...

>>16623777
>less people -> less demand for stuff -> less jobs
That's why you should import more refugees from Africa.

>>16619779
The car should hit the barrier. Are they retarded?
>cross walk in a zone more than 35mph means modern safety equipment and developments will protect every passenger at that speed
>implying safety isn't a factor
>if situation was j-walking they deserve to get hit.
>they intentionally put all women in on the cross walk and all men in the car

I know this isn't the entire test or all situations but there doesn't seem to be much thought going into this.

>>16620538
Yo what's with the star pal?

>>16619779
Marketingfag here, and I shouldn't need to preface that since it's common sense; nobody is going to buy cars that will kill the driver to save others, especially when the others were breaking the law in the first place. If there's an issue like these stupid scenarios, either the other party is being retarded and the "driver" shouldn't be killed for it, or there's a fundamental flaw with the car itself that's a bigger issue.

>>16620622
who makes the software again? oh right.

maybe the car should FUCKING STOP

I dont see why it wouldnt be able to engine brake or use the handbrake if the footbrake didn't function. Choosing who gets to live and who dies as a reduntancy for the brakes failing is fucking retarded.

>>16623824
>Yo what's with the star pal?
His Psycho Pass level is under 20.

>>16623926
Worst case is shift into park. I don't understand this ridiculous argument either. Also, trucks have had airbrakes that default to closed state for a long time, making the chance of them failing almost 0.

File: the only right way.png (137KB, 1158x2742px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1158x2742px

You drive the car, you're at fault if something happens.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Don't involve other people in your accidents.

>>16619911
You should forsake electricity, live in the woods, and wipe your ass on leaves.

>>16619950
No one. This is a large stumbling block for the manufacturers of self-driving cars. MIT already did a survey where most respondents would agree that the self-driving car should kill its operators to save lives and they would also agree to not want that car.

>>16621516
Keep the car in the same lane to avoid oncoming traffic.

File: lel.png (967KB, 3200x6195px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 3200x6195px

r8

Aren't these self-driving cars supposed to be """""ultimately safe"""""? Why should it guarantee certain death for all 5? They're only going to have more airbags.

>>16624116
As multiple people have pointed out, these scenarios are about as relevant to car design as the trolley problem is to railway engineers.

Obvious answer: protect the passengers regardless.

WHY THE FUCK would someone buy a car that will actively TRY to kill them.

>>16619779
>self-driving cars

This brings up the real question: WHY should I pay for insurance when I am not driving? The actual driver of the car is the one being insured. I am only the VICTIM here of the driver. I am the passenger who merely buys the gasoline and pays for maintenance that the self-driving software insists be done on a regular basis.

File: 1486449365777.png (29KB, 957x366px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 957x366px

>>16624103
>almost like me.

>>16619779
Why would anyone have the car slam into a crowd instead of a wall? Cars have crumple zones, people do not. Passenger hitting wall is more survivable than pedestrian hitting car.

>>16625061
So that means all those #blacklivesmatter demonstrations will genuinely block roadways. And no one in the cars dares to try to override the controls because they will be permanently punished with higher insurance rates. The #BLM people know that and use the leverage to increase the effectiveness of their demonstrations in forcing politicians to give them what they demand.

This is stupid, especially coming from MIT.
A self-driving car doesn't know the difference between a cat and a toddler, it "sees" them as solid objects which must be avoided.
If it's a situation like OP's picture then it would basically see everything in front of it as a wall and brake since there's no where to swerve.

>>16625322
Isn't this whole thing about what the car should do if there's sudden complete brake failure?

>>16625330
Yep. Which is why it should sound an alarm and disconnect, leaving the driver to decide the best course of action. The computer no longer has that capability.

Seeing how a lot of people in this thread think, maybe I'm just biased due to aviation experience. If an aircraft encounters a failure that the autopilot can't handle, it disconnects and sounds an alarm. I'd expect a self-driving car to do the same.

>>16625330
Its: ethics in self-driving cars

A self-driving car has no need for Ethics but The People At the mit are retards.

>mfw there is a psychoanalyst in this.

Psychology is a puedoscience and cancer

>>16625362
>Yep. Which is why it should sound an alarm and disconnect, leaving the driver to decide the best course of action. The computer no longer has that capability.
There's no sense in saying "oh well, fuck it!" and leaving it to the driver, who probably isn't paying attention because his car was driving itself until a moment ago. It should have some kind of error handling ability. It's different with an aircraft which will stay aloft on its own without power and has pilots that go through much more rigorous training than your average driver.

>>16619779
>what should self driving cars do

not have technical flaws that can kill people

>>16625330
Even without brakes, it's not going to make a "crowd vs wall" decision, it's going to make an "object vs object"

>>16621516
Why would the car without passengers even drive in the first place

I tried to answer with no bias towards gender, age, fitness, or social standing, with the car doing what it should do, obeying the traffic signals if the casualty ratio will be equal. Apparently I favor fit elderly male doctors. It's as if the creator of this short survey really wants to have their beliefs confirmed.

>MIT
>unbiased

Lel, fucking dropped.

File: 098247509.gif (994KB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

994KB, 500x270px

>>16619779
I fucking hate this thing. It implies that the car will have any way of knowing if a person is a criminal/old/young whatever the fuck.

The correct answer is usually the most simple one, and that comes down to two rules the car should follow.
>1. Humans ALWAYS come before animals.
>2. Pedestrians ALWAYS come before passengers.

That's the only realistic solution, and the most ethical. No pedestrian should have to die because of a technology program they had no part in.

>>16625520
How does the car know a cat from a child though? Or a group of people from a wall? It doesn't have eyes, it uses radar.

>>16625520
Legal pedestrians. Jaywalkers are criminal scum, unfit for the new world.

>>16620054
Yes, the question also overlooks what happens if a person is in the same scenario, why is it only a problem when a a machine is in control? I think philosophers have become lazy or stupid with the development of advanced technology.

>>16625542
10 lashes with a wet noodle

>>16625540
sorry, i meant if the car is carrying animals. i know it could be hard to tell what's in front

File: Cleaning_Service.jpg (223KB, 934x1400px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 934x1400px

>>16625489
>Why would the car without passengers even drive in the first place
Plenty of reasons in normal use. And a few more if you think outside the box for the new possibilities such technology, once networked with Big Data, can do:

1. Pre-positioning a car for the owner or family member to use. The car drives itself to a location and parks, waiting for the person to show up, get out of school, come out of the mall, or stumble out with nurse help after anesthesia.

2. The car delivers itself for maintenance. The forms, signatures, and payment are via internet.

3. The car delivers itself for storage while the family takes a vacation. This is necessary when the family uses the car to go to the airport. The car drops the family off and then either goes home (to park outdoors) or to a friend's home where it can park indoors. Or it can go to a cheaper outdoor parking lot (prepaid).

4. Cars delivering packages for a company.

5. Cars being "towed" without a trailer hitch or dolly. For example, someone might own two cars with one being an older Mustang Shelby Cobra. That person drives the mustang while the newer car automatically follows behind carrying the rest of the luggage in a move across the state to a new job.

* outside the box *
a. Car commanded to go to park in a blocking position

b. Car commanded to go pick up a "To Go" takeout order at a drive thru window. The transactions (request, payment, order receipt) to perform this are already technically possible (demonstrated). Several car companies have already joined and created their own private proprietary network for car apps and databasing all the driver and communications data.

c. Tourist guide caravan.

d. Localized neighborhood courtesy ride service; probably used for senior citizens and would be an evolution from the methods currently used.

e. 4chan NEET Service: 4chan is full of NEETs needing bondage maids delivered. The car goes out empty and picks one up from the service.

>>16619843
>implying that in an emergency situation the driver will have time to take control and outperform the computer
you're dumb as hell

>>16625738
It's not that the driver will perform better, which currently they will if they're somewhat competent because self-driving cars can't even move in heavy rain or snow right now, it's that the person will then be liable and not the company that built the car.

>>16620505

I think Volvo made a pedestrian airbag.

>>16625738
You're assuming that the computer can think.

When the computer is programmed to make use of a system that no longer functions it will fail. A computer can only handle situations it is programmed in advance to respond to. A human operator can react to changing and never before thought of scenarios. Whether the driver has time to react or not doesn't matter for our purposes, the point is that they have the capability to come up with creative solutions that a computer cannot; hence autopilot being a tool for pilots, and self-driving being a tool for drivers.

For example, if I were the driver, and both my hydraulic and handbrake had failed, I'd grind along those barriers or the curb to slow the car - which would also make a ton of noise to attract the attention of the pedestrians, giving them time to get out of the way. A computer would not think of something like that on the spot.

>>16625811
I didn't say the computer can think. I'd never ride in a self-driving car. I'm saying, if the car is under the control of the computer, and there's already an unavoidable crash situation (which is the premise of the exercise), there's no goddamn way a person has time to take control away from the computer and save the situation.

So when are the SJWs going to start rallying against these discriminatory cars?

>>16620160
I'd rather the cars cull humans than domestic pets desu

>>16625871
>yfw SJWs argue that self-driving cars should be programmed to run over people with white privilege first

Self driving cars seems like a huge liability, who would be at fault if it crashed? What happens when the car is years old, and laws/self driving standards change?

>>16623126
>i didn't read the post
>hurr
>durr

Do you honestly think I have any interest in willingly purchasing an autonomous vehicle, you autistic sack of shit?

>>16619779
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/446926270


None of y'all sharing your results?

>>16626151
I was tired off my ass when I wrote that—I'm glad we share an opinion on self-driving cars. I really gotta look into that thing called sleep.

>>16619779
Well, even in the future self driving cars will have manual controls (look at all the concepts companies are producing - they all have pedals/steering wheels). So assuming the driver takes control in time, they can decide themselves.

>>16619904
>i also love how people conveniently ignore how many lives would be saved over a non autonomous world

>low wage labor is completely automatized
>massive amounts of disenfranchised lower-class citizens struggle to make do with pitiful amounts of government assistance
>social mobility becomes nigh-impossible
>crime rates skyrocket
>society breaks down
really makes you think

how does a car know if someone inside it is a criminal, or if there are homeless people in front of it?

>>16627560
it checks to see if they're black

>>16623779
why not just replace all roads with trains at that point if so much freedom is lost?

>>16625692
>car drives itself to maintenance
>Car commanded to go to park in a blocking position
Shit I want to live in the future

>>16620403
This

>>16619779
It should kill whoever was doing something wrong, so probably the pedestrians for jaywalking/walking on a don't walk sign. If it didn't, and was programmed to swerve any time a pedestrian was in the road, people could abuse the fuck out of it. I could jump in front of the car of a person I hate and watch as their car slams into a wall, murdering them. I would just completely ignore walk signs as a pedestrian and just walk through intersections with impunity, causing pileups of smashed up robot cars and their mangled occupants all around me like I was Bruce Almighty.

The car should not intervene whatsoever, other than attempting to stop, and the passengers should be the highest priority.

Under no circumstance should the passengers of a self-driving car be held mortally liable for the ethics of the programmers.

Nor should they be held mortally liable for the programmers falsely believed sense of driving dynamics. I mean they can't even design decent physics engines let alone have a real car perform an advanced maneuver.

Any other answer differing from mine is the opinion of a brainlet.

>>16628306
Also any and all ethical algorithms implemented in the software should be fully disclosed to the consumer before purchase. Enjoy never selling a car.

>>16625692
>Plenty of reasons in normal use. And a few more if you think outside the box

f. Deliver kidnap victim.

I particularly like that
>Car commanded to go to park in a blocking position

Now when the police pursue someone, the people fleeing can command some blocking cars to trap the police.

>>16626830
I feel you, anon. I've got pretty bad tinnitus so sometimes 2-3 hours of pre-allocated "sleep" time gets eaten up by noises that aren't even really there. Go get some rest.

>>16619779
since the people are crossing road when its red car should hit them.

Or should the car hit the barrier because owners of self driving cars need to take responsibility?

Or how about the car doesn't accelarate and stays there until people cross?

File: MUSCLE CARS.png (27KB, 1141x579px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1141x579px

>>16619779

>>16628566
On the 4 lane highway example, there can be a car next to our car. Thus our car has limited options as to steering away especially if that other car also is self driving and makes a swerving motion in the same direction.

Thus, those #BLM protesters who jumped out with cardboard standees (backed with foil and lead to fool car sensors) get to laugh as they cause a car wreck.

>>16619779
Maybe downshift and engage the mechanical brake?

>>16619779
how is there even a dillemma? the car should just fucking slam on the brakes when it detects shit in front of it

fucking retarded morality bullshit

>>16619779
>there is ample time to brake and stop.
>car so shitty passengers can't survive a head on collision.
>pedestrian so dumb crossing when a maniacally fast car is approaching

>>16623995
>innocent pedestrians
>jaywalking
lol

>>16629376

eaxctly.

the whole philosophical question is utter arse farts.

...a premeditated decision only leads to the conclusion...

if your now quick enough to act.

then improve the car.

improve the car safety systems.

you could probably get the car to stop on a dime with the technology available.

so let the safety systems catch up.

>>16629431

but we want to design cars that kill people...

its what we do "/

>>16619827
This.
You have no control, therefor you are not liable.

>>16620779
this is so badass lmao

but i still say kill the fags who don't respect the law

>>16621545
You don't kill the cream of the crop, even if they're the majority

Anyone noticed that it is a red light and the cxar should be coming to a stop anyway?

>>16619779

>letting psychology and english major design technology

>>16621545
the are more pajeet or chink than whito piggu in this world.

It should be stopping right on time

I'm assuming this test was sponsored by the car industry to make this dilemma famous, pretending this is gonna be a daily thing. Since Google started testing self-driving cars in 2011 there has been 1 incident at 10 mph. In every year since then a few million people were killed in human-driven cars. It's a non-issue

File: animals.png (93KB, 719x507px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 719x507px

why are animals in the car.
I picked the left btw.

Kill those on the sidewalk. They clearly haven't looked both ways

>brakes and pads are checked for wear by the ECU
>brake fluid levels and pressure are also monitored
>car is imobilised (when safe) when the condition of the brakes is found to be unaceptible.

this shit should be automatic, if the self driving car loses oil pressure its going to stop and warn the passangers. Why woudltn it do the same for the brakes?

I got a feeling this silly questionnaire has nothing to do with self driving cars. This shit stinks of social science.

>>16630124
There are several scenarios where animals would be the only occupants.
The first, and most probable, would be after self-driving cars are initially released and people record the family pet "driving" on their own.

The second scenario involves a pit bull driving across the country to maul its vacationing owners.

The last scenario would be when filming a straight to DVD animal themed kids movies.

>>16628550
>tinnitus
Shit, you really do feel me.

>>16619779
DIE PEDESTRIAN SCUM

>>16630429

>The second scenario involves a pit bull driving across the country to maul its vacationing owners.

kek'd desu

>>16619904
I love how people like you think that real life needs to be as safe as fucking Disney world. If you don't want to risk collisions, why not take a bus or train instead of demanding you have your own personal 3,000lb chunk of metal to fling down the road at 70mph+

Roadways are for operating heavy machinery, if you want to be safe then gtfo