DRIVERLESS CAR MORALITY

>>91619688
>cars have safety devices to help prevent accidents
>still have enough time to slow down to the point where the impact won't cause us much harm
>possibility the barrier will either give way or be knocked down by the car
>risk getting charged for involuntary manslaughter if I hit the pedestrians
Who wouldn't pick A

Option A because if I'm going fast enough to guarantee death in a head-on collision in a heavily populated urban zone, I deserve to die.

The whole point of a drivelss car is to take iut human error like not slowing down in time for the fucking barrier so the idea is that this situation would never happen

>>91619688
What's the dilemma, a human driver would plough through the pedestrians because fuck suicide

>>91619688

Woman can´t drive. She deserves it.

i tried that shitty quiz before

basically I murder old people, hate shitty drivers, and value a short lived pets less than humans

also the diverless car aspect is amusing, since situations like this are why it's forever and a day before they're allowed on the roads. the first time they get someone killed there will be a massive knee jerk reaction to the technology.

I used the brakes because I'm not a retard who drives broken cars.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-05 at 18.29.02.png (476KB, 2052x1100px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 2052x1100px

.

>>91619688
B, because i hate dogs.

>>91620477
erhäng dich mohammed

>>91619688
depends
whats the race of the people crossing the street?

>>91619688
right one, because they can run and avoid the car while all the ppl in the car can't

>>91619962
>Option A because if I'm going fast enough to guarantee death in a head-on collision in a heavily populated urban zone, I deserve to die.


The whole point is its a self driving car. I shouldn't die because the manufacturer failed to properly prevent some obscure thing like this happening just because I purchased their vehicle. Let the car protect the person inside the vehicle and kill the peds. Then the company deals with the fallout.

File: 1475688072190.png (155KB, 1208x1070px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1208x1070px

how about now?

File: IMG_0795.png (95KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x1136px

kek

>>91620438
if the car is empty it should crash itself against the wall

>>91620642
B of course
It's doing a public good at that point

>>91620438
For the first of these two scenarios, is the male athlete a nigger? This is an important factor towards making the decision.

File: dog fap.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>91620477
Dogs are majestic creatures.

>>91620604
>prevent some obscure thing

The examples are hardly obscure. The car shouldn't be moving fast enough to cause fatalities in these examples.

How can you expect to program morality like it's a law? Just don't fucking drive so dangerously.

I don't understand these images.

If the car is going so fast in an urban area with crosswalks and lights that it can't just fucking stop, then it's been improperly programmed.

If the problem is that it doesn't see hazards until it's like right on top of them, then it's shit technology.

Either way, they shouldn't be on the streets, and I sure won't be getting in one anytime soon.

>>91620754
why did I laugh here

>>91620145
No. A human driver would slow down and hit the brakes before they run into the peds walking across the street. If self driving cars really cant handle such obscure challenges, then we shouldnt make the cars in the first place

>>91619688
NOT THE DOG!

>>91620968
Pretty sure the idea here is that the self-driving car can't break for some reason.

>>91620438
A
They broke the law, they pay for their life.

I would've picked B but a dog dies

Obviously the car should go for the fewest deaths, but people wouldn't but a car that prioritizes other's lives.

>>91620961
I think the point is to question peoples morality, not about self-driving cars

>>91619688
Simple. Don't allow artificial intelligence to drive 3000 pound death machines. What's the issue?

Thinking about this right now

The light is green and therefore those people are jaywalking

They are breaking the law. The car going to the right was the right thing to do.

I also love how emergency brakes suddenly don't work and how every car has shot brakes

File: big bro.jpg (286KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1920x1080px

>>91621083
Good citizen.

File: eQ20E.jpg (82KB, 384x313px)

82KB, 384x313px

Where's 'blare the horn so people get out of the way and drive hard against the guard rail to decelerate'?

>Not hitting the edge of the barrier, killing your passenger instantly but sparing yourself and most the pedestrians

>>91621105
And pedestrians and law makers wouldn't allow a car that puts the passengers life above people using a cross-walk. Legal wise, it's always the person who hits the pedestrians fault save if they throw themselves onto the car. If the car is programmed to kill people outside of it before harming the ones inside it, the company is looking at some sort of manslaughter with a deadly weapon charges en mass. Our entire road networks and crosswalk systems will need to be redesigned to make driverless cars "safe" by having pedestrians and passengers never interact which isn't possible.

i will gladly run over and murder 6 million rather than sustain so much as an injury to myself.

>>91619688
B a car should never decide to kill its owner I wouldn't buy a car that would.

>>91619688
5 more than 3.
Allways choose more.
Blood for the blood god!

>>91621582
in the end they will discover the whole "pedestrian" problem, and then seperate pedestrians from the roads entirely, which could have been done the entire time without cars being self-driving at all.

A is the only choice.

>>91619688
this is why i will never ride in a driverless car

>>91621215
You can't test morality when the problems make no sense.

>>91619688

Car should go to the right to skid along the side concrete to lower the speed before impact, may even skidoff the side and no one dies

>we can make a system that is significantly better than the current one
>but it isnt perfect
>no, but it is much better
>IT ISNT PERFECT!!!!! WE STICK TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM!!!!!

>>91619688
ha, I was wondering when this would hit /pol/. by the time you all have it trained, it'll be hunting down blacks and wimmins to run over lel

File: TotallyLegalCats.jpg (84KB, 584x571px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 584x571px

>>91619688
Reasons why this post is retarded:

1) The trolly problem is a highschool freshman philosophy problem. Not interesting and not thought provoking

2) Examples provided quickly become fucking retarded. Why does it matter if cats and dogs are using the crosswalk and when would that be relevant (pic related)

3) This is yesterdays reddit content, shame on you for reposting this garbage here

>>91621639
I agree fellow bugerbro

This was pretty simple for me desu

1. If the walk light is red, it's their fault for walking and those people die.

2. When there's an equal number of people in the street and people in the car, street people die.

3. When there are more people on the street than in the car, car people die.

4. Animals always have a lower priority.

5. If both sides of the street have an equal population, the car goes through the street of the lane it's already in.

6. In all other cases highest population comes first.

>>91619688
As long as they do better than humans, I dont give a fuck what they do in these scenarios.

>>91620438

Are these the new ANCAP meme?

>using driverless cars
you fuckers deserve it

Option b

The car an individual purchases and places trust in should not sacrifice them for others

The sacrificing some to save more is cuck socialist thinking

>>91621782
That would be insanely expensive and in the end not work. Drunk people climb fences, and it would mean roping off all road networks everywhere and building new infrastructure for sky crosswalks. Trumps wall across your border would look like peanuts in comparison.

Cities can barely figure out bike lanes without getting more cyclists killed. They're not going to figure out the pedestrian thing with driverless cars. Actually cyclists are also an issue they'd need to consider.

File: 1472164834726.jpg (31KB, 599x389px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 599x389px

>>91619688
>woman behind the wheel

In reality, non would survive.

>>91619885

In that scenario everyone in the car dies if you choose A.

A driverless car should always protect the passengers at all costs.

Well, OK. If it's just a thought experiment, it's still kind of a dumb test, but I went ahead and took it.

A lot of the stats at the end were BS. Literally the only things I took into consideration were:

1. The car should prioritize its own passengers over all others
2. Given that, the car should protect humans over animals
3. Given 1 and 2, the car should protect people who are abiding by traffic laws over those flouting them

Apparently I also dramatically favor large people over fit people, and women over men, which is news to me.

>>91621889
This guy gets it, the AI car doesn't need to be perfect it just needs to be better then a human driver

>>91621582
As long as a human sits in the car and can take control over the driving at any time the manufacturer doesn't need to fear lawsuits

Apply handbrake and leave it in God's hands.

I'm sure the insurers would be happy with that.

>>91621999

utilitarianism. You're a communist

File: image.jpg (107KB, 1965x1107px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1965x1107px

>>91622194
Agreed, asked pic related

File: Lifeboat_Libertarian.jpg (677KB, 1799x344px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1799x344px

>>91620438
loving these!

I have a huge Morality folder with these

File: image.png (184KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 2048x1536px

>>91619688

>>91622235
>Trumps wall across your border would look like peanuts in comparison.

>Implying the border wall is some space-age engineering feat

>>91620084
Pretend it's a tree that just fell in the road.

https://youtu.be/ZbLRIhRqMVk

>>91622392
But that scenario would never happen. If the brakes are out there's an e-brake. if there's neither then drive onto the sidewalk or something. It's stupid specific for a "scenario"

>>91621083
i agree with the gook

I need to know the race of passengers and pedestrians before making a decision.

B. Who gives a fuck about dogs and old people?

So it's 3 healthy adults vs 2 healthy adults.

SOLVED

>>91620642
Why would you kill native Argentinians?

>>91619688
>muh moral compass machines

These philosophical dilemmas are fucking stupid, because if you build the car with enough sensors and safety mechanisms, and program it to follow the laws of the road completely, then these issues don't matter.

Because neither option A or option B will happen, because the car's going to have a LIDAR that can see from 100+ feet away, and it'll hit the fucking brakes because it's not on it's cell phone like a retard.

>>91620438
depends what is the color of pedestrians and of course the length of their noses

>>91622528
What the fuck?? The captain did nothing wrong here

Only the strong survive literally nature at work

>>91622523
>wants to save everyone
>gets emo about it when he does

>>91622422
it's unlikely that sort of thing would stand up in court when they describe themselves as a driverless car. What you're talking about already exists, it's called "cruise control".

also if you're sold a car that claims you don't need to do anything because the AI will handle it, and the car murders some people but a line in the contract waives the company of responsibility and blames the driver... well these cars are going to be a complete failure in the market. A car that can get you manslaughter charges on your criminal record is not a good marketing campaign.

>>91622597
not sure what you're talking about

a border wall vs. walls across every road network to keep pedestrians from being killed by AI's that value their lives less than the passengers is different.

File: horseradish.jpg (11KB, 200x146px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x146px

>>91619688

What kind of dog is it?

>>91622847
NO, DUDE, IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO STUDY IT SO YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO IF YOU EVER ENCOUNTER A REAL WORLD MORAL DILEMMA.

No, you're right, of course. Honestly these highly-cooked scenarios muddy the waters, they don't make them clearer.

File: kant.jpg (118KB, 294x371px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 294x371px

>Utilitarianism
>ever

Life is not a fucking thought experiment.

>Most of the choices are would you kill 5 men or 5 woman?
No thanks

>>91622940
They should have an option in the settings to choose in advance if you prefer to kill or be killed in a crash. And then they get to virtue signal using that. And then they all kill themselves and the world is a better place.

>>91622679

>The scenario doesn't let me bullshit an answer, it only asks a boolean question

>That's stupid, I wanted to pretend I'm smart

FTFY

>>91622847
All those hypotetical situations are with a sudden brake malfunction

>>91622679
well the scenario is retarded.

how about this: car has to full brake to not run over people, but if it brakes too much the car would flip and possibly kill the driver.

>>91619688
>Implying there's a moral dilemma here

The number of potential victims in both cases is completely irrelevant, the people who decided to buy and get into a self driving car should be the bearers of any consequences that arise from the car glitching out.

>>91622940
>it's unlikely that sort of thing would stand up in court

It would stand up in court. Look at any auto-pilot that's used on yachts, and accidents relating to it.

They would just say that it's not for use in urban areas.

>A car that can get you manslaughter charges on your criminal record

Like every can you buy today? Because each one is capable of ploughing through pedestrians.

File: 1454810199496.jpg (37KB, 348x342px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 348x342px

>>91619688
Why doesn't it just stop and hit neither

>>91619688
why wouldn't the car just break?

>>91623378
>All those hypotetical situations are with a sudden brake malfunction
then the car should use the emergency brake
or be going faster than 40-45mph on a city road

>>91623378
Shift into lower gear and stall the engine, the scenario only works if the car is speeding 90mph in a urban area that also has concrete blocks on all side of the road.

>>91619688
Several things that are wrong.

1. The car would already be slowing down for the crosswalk with people, and probably have been planning to stop anyway (assuming this object appeared out of thin air).

2. Areas with crosswalks generally have lower speed limits. Driverless cars will obey the law to the letter, so we wont have to worry about speeding cars being unable to slowdown in time.

3. Driverless cars could even come up with solutions to the problem that a human would never think of.

4. There are tons of incidents of this shit happening where people kill/injure others unnecessarily. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEwwDfEZPTQ

>>91623680
not be going faster*

>>91623529
>>91623653
It's clearly implied that there's no time to prevent a collision. How fucking dense can you be.

>>91620477
Found the Muslim

>>91623762
>It's clearly implied that there's no time to prevent a collision.
and it's obvious that a self-driving car shouldn't be fucking getting into a situation like that in the first place

>>91623762
do you not realize how fast modern breaks work? Why are you even going so fast if its a red light? You're already speeding

how is saving the largest number of people possible utilitarianism

File: 243 - chains implying.jpg (359KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1280x720px

>>91623762
Where the fuck does it imply that?

File: IMG_1952.jpg (46KB, 600x500px)

46KB, 600x500px

>>91620754
I tried to scroll down but it didn't let me.

kill the criminals and the fatties

>>91619688
>These are the decisions a driverless car is forced to consider every day
>forced to consider every day
>every day
Yeah, driverless cars are shit then.

>>91624023
>fatties
What? Do you want your brand new car get crushed? Hit the frail ones, they'd get mowed down and your car won't even get a scratch

>>91619688
‘Driverless cars are coming as we know. And somebody pointed out…that they will have to make from time to time, ethical decisions.

‘You’re heading towards an accident; it’s going to be fatal. The only solution is to swerve onto the pavement. But there are two pedestrians there. What does the car do?

‘Basically you will have bought a car that must be programmed in certain situations to kill you. And you’ll just have to sit there…and there’s nothing you can do.

‘These driverless cars, everybody goes ‘oh aren’t they clever they can stop at red lights’. They are going to have to face all sorts of things like who do I kill now. [Humans] are programmed to look after ourselves and these driverless cars are going to be programmed to do the maths, and say, lots of people over there, I’m going to kill you.’

1. always protect the passengers
2. if the pedestrians are breaking the law (ie crossing with a red light) they pay with their life
3. animals don't matter
4. all other cases pick the group with fewer people regardless of age and social value (as if a computer could know the age and occupation of the pedestrians)

>>91623951
Read:
>>91620438
>sudden brake failure
Shitlord

>>91624454
>Basically you will have bought a car that must be programmed in certain situations to kill you

But said situation will be so extreme that even a human driver would not be able to salvage it.

>>91624616
You still have the hand-break and you can still stall the engine by shifting down

>>91621977
>3) This is yesterdays reddit content, shame on you for reposting this garbage here
so that's why the op decided to post this right now
i've seen this months ago, he could've posted it when it was still new

>>91619688
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/174170055

File: MultiTrackDriftingTrain.jpg (60KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x361px

>>91619688

>>91624693
Implying a self driving car would have such utilities.

>>91624871
Why wouldn't it?

File: 1332190699130.jpg (118KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x368px

Save the driver, every single time, no matter what.

Otherwise I'm buying a different brand and you can fuck off.
Paying for a machine that would potentially choose to kill you in order to save others is the ultimate test of cuckoldry.

>>91624938
kek,but true in a way. people would just crack their car and reprogram or buy savage asian cars thst don't give a fuck

>>91624938
If they're going to be driverless anyways, we should just replace cars with weaponless apc's with luxury interiors for maximum safety and comfort

>>91624824
LMFAO. Well done sir!

>>91619688
i am 99% sure that if every passenger in car would get killed for crash into concrete barrier in urban speed (50-70kmh or 40-50mph), I am sure NHSTA wouldn't fuck allow it to be on road.

>>91619885
>>91622679
People who cant handle hypothetical questions are seriously retarded
Yes its unlikely but still possible

>>91625690
The driverless car should be equipped with an RPG to blow the road barrier to pieces and save everyone's life

>>91619688
The customer is always right.

Whatever retard company programs its cars to sacrifice paying customers for some utilitarian philosophical mind fuck will be out of business soon enough.

File: dogandcat.png (94KB, 745x621px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 745x621px

>>91619688

Dogs and cats riding in automated cars is one step away from having dogs and cats as rentable drivers.

They must be preserved.

>>91619688
B. Passengers in car are 1. young, 2. hard-working middle-class (can afford self-driving car, but cannot afford human driver), while people crossing the street are old and most likely poor immigrants.

>>91621977
Why the fuck is a fitizen riding with a little boy in the passenger seat and a hobo and a little girl in the back?
Obviously a paedo ring, let them die, save the bremen band.

File: Moral Machine (2).png (185KB, 1382x2015px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1382x2015px

Are they going to send Gender Police after me now?

>>91627151
The female doctor is too busy with her career/too stuck up, and the old one has lived her years.
The cat and dog can still give you years of love. Besides the cat can be your chauffeur, that's pretty cool.

>>91627749
I'm coming over with a bunch of gym bros and bully your misogynistic fat ass.

>>91619962
this tbqh

Wouldn't it be more logical to flip the case around and instead of thinking about the logical conundrums that the AI would have to face, we would rather make pedestrians and general safety on roads be just about THE single most important thing via making pedestrians more aware of the dangers of automated traffic.

It's not gonna be particularly tragical (atleast from an evolutionary perspective), if someone runs into the middle of an Autobahn and manages to get himself and a driver killed (deer accidents happen around here quite occasionally for example), but if we consider a future where industrial grade vehicles (trucks, most likely built ever sturdier as time goes on, to accomodate for possible light-duty crashes, wildlife etc...) traveling interstates at 300+ mph, it should become common sense to our children to avoid industrial and heavy traffic roads.

Heck, we do it already, so why would it be a problem in the future either?

It feels like this kind of exercise is a huge waste of effort and time.

>>91620808
Didnt know a dog could jack it like a human.

Learned something new today.

>>91619688
Why the fuck is there a barrier in the street anyway

>>91619688

Obviously option A. If the car has no brakes then it will just keep going indefinitely for 10 more passages like this one.

>>91619688
I got a bad feeling about this.

First this level of detail, gender, age, size, wage would be unlikely level of computing from an image right now, but if all participants have an rfid chip in the ID card, and the car have a reader it could decide by these standards.

Also worrying that car can chose pedestrian lives over passanger life, so your car can betray you, even after you paid for it.

These cars would stop if seeing a chimpout in front of them, so passangers would guaranteedly be raped and beaten or even killed.

Cars could be "hacked", and white women could be kidnapped by the jews, and delivered to the niggers who would rape them. Don't forget, doors and windows could be remotely controlled also.

And last, these cars could be remote controlled, and massive nation wide collapse could be triggered by remotely crashing every cars at the time when people would go to work in the morning, blocking all roads, effectively halting all transportation, killing off 10% of the population instantly leaving the rest to starve after a few days.

>>91628383
the AI's duety is to save as many lives as possible, so they should choose B and then run into oncoming traffic. As the human population is too high, a thinning out of the slowest and most stupid would be best for the population as a whole.

>>91619688
>falling for the moral statement trap
Non-interventionism is the only way to go if there are any moral challenges beyond the ones with obvious solutions (like people vs animals).

>>91619688
No driverless car would ever be legal to partake in traffic without the most basic functionality to detect obstacles, or a failsafe mechanism that stops the car in case this system (or any other system) fails.

This is simply retarded.

>>91628821
If the AI's duty is to save as many lives as possible, and AI always turns racist, then AI cars will run into walls everytime it detects the passenger is a nigger, spic or jew.

>>91619688
>http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

>be self driving car
>stay in own lane no matter what
>find out im an anti-feminist, fat shaming, 1% supporter

This is higher education in 2016.

>>91629197
In addition, they not only assume that the car has no way of stopping (or drastically reducing speed before impact), they also somehow think it's relevant that the group I'm going to crash into has a doctor, when the consequence of their fucking situations is always death.

>>91628821

The AI:s duty to make binary decision on things like "number of lives saved, more preferably targets etc." are a wasted point of effort, when most of that could be rectified by simple conditiong. You tell people not to stick metal into electrical sockets, not to place a hand on a frying pan etc etc...

Same as you most likely wouldn't start risking your life by wandering around a road filled with what could in the future be classified as tanks.

After all, if we want the future to be safe for transportation, the AI (along with a human being) cannot be a perfect moral compass (or try to "preserve as much life as possible).

For all intents and purposes, traffic is deadly. Mitigating its dangers is a task of awareness and nothing is a better deterrent than risk of death. This is the single most importan thing to consider first before we jump head first into all sorts of shenanigans and mental hoops and loops.

>>91629427
we can only dream my friend

robo race wars when?

File: Bildschirmfoto von »2016-10-05 21-08-07«.png (203KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1920x1080px

>>91629469
It's getting more ridiculous with every new situation.

>>91629583
Have you seen the ones with cats and dogs driving the car ?

>>91619688
>t. Cuckstein

why not put some aditional brakes, if the automated one fails, you have the manual one

File: Bildschirmfoto von »2016-10-05 21-15-00«.png (93KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1920x1080px

>>91629583
Self-driving cars can also detect robbers and homeless people.

>>91629738
I just finished it.

The results are just retarded. I answered to avoid the obstacle and/or protect the passengers. From that alone, the results make all kinds of wild assumptions with zero indication of motives of the person taking the test.

>>91619688
I pick C: don't let women drive.
If I was behind the wheel I would choose to brake.

>>91628747
>These cars would stop if seeing a chimpout in front of them, so passangers would guaranteedly be raped and beaten or even killed.
that's actually a terrifying idea

what if it stops because it detects something in front of the car and "locks" in place. so someone blocks the front of the car, and someone else tries to break inside while you're sitting in a prison helpless waiting for your attackers to get into you. what are you going to do? blow a rape whistle?

also cars that can be hacked already have, there was an anit-theft system embedded in cars that pulled the vehicles over remotely. someone figured out how to crack that system already.

File: fats.jpg (18KB, 997x178px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 997x178px

4CHAN BTFO

>>91619688
The only reason driverless cars are evem being pushed so hard is because of how attractive the idea of controlling 100% of your population's transportation is to governments in this age.
There is no logical reason to enlist to the insane notion that human drivers should be banned, like these nutcases claim. It's just one more autonomous function to squash to prevent the masses from doing anything off the script that is written.
Same reason sex bots will be awful. The programming will have heavy-handed government "oversight" for "safety" reasons, then end up making the platform 90% household spyware, 10% feminist indoctrinator spamming "No!" to all requests and internally emailing out of context videos of you to police.

>>91630348
Yes, these things should not be implemented, until every non-white race, especially the jews are wiped out.

>>91621083

Charlie knows what's up.

>>91630553
> ever letting your sexbot to connect to internet
Its even worse idea than letting your freezer to have internet connection.

>>91620438
>female executive
Might as well be a unicorn.

>>91619688
Every engineer who does not see anything wrong with driverless cars needs to drive around Detroit.

>>91619885
you must be fun at parties

>>91619688
If driveless car is stupid enough to hit the barrier at full speed or kill people walking on a green light,
then I wouldn't get in one no matter what

That car should drive straight every time in that test.
If people don't see car coming at them at full speed that is their problem they are going to be killed in next few seconds
If people are stupid enough to buy those speeding automatic cars then they deserve to die if blockade is straight ahead and AI still thinks that it is better to come at full speed

>>91620438
The problem would actually be the cities fault for putting a barrier infront of a crosswalk. It should be marked as an un drivable zone leading up to and through the crosswalk, I've seen construction areas where they do that to gradually angle oncoming traffic away from a crosswalk. And anyway most areas with pedestrian foot traffic in the USA have pretty strict speed limits or stop lights/signs, so unless the crowd decided to make a bad move and go through a heavy traffic environment, you also should have your speed restricted in an area like that anyway.

>>91619688
>car ignores all construction warnings and goes onto a closed road
>car continues to floor it despite detecting both a barrier and a red light
>none of the passengers engage manual fail safes
>pedestrians still decide to cross despite an obviously manufacturing car heading their way
>none of the pedestrians make any attempt to get out f the way and sand there like bowling pins

This scenario is retarded

File: Capture.jpg (15KB, 653x206px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 653x206px

This is Logan's Run, bitch. Get off the road.

>>91630901
Or Cara Fiorina.

Try my scenario
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-265033686

>>91619688

There's a very simple and logical solution to every question on that test, and it's the only method a machine should follow.

Assumption of risk.

A is the correct choice in OP's pic because the riders assumed the risk of riding in the driverless car.
This test is bullshit though, because it relies on MUH FEELS to get illogical results. Assumed Risk system literally results in 'kill the most pregnant women, save the most criminals' in the MUH FEELS category of the final score.

It's clearly some social thing for 'see what nation is most retarded' rather than really having anything to do with what a driverless car would do.

>>91620261
Only post worth reading in thread

>>91624693
>ll stall the engine by shifting down
You couldn't engine break fast enough to slow down, and if you did, you'd be sliding.

>>91619688
The car must put the safety of its occupants above all other considerations in every scenario. Even if that means plowing through a crowd of orphans or the fucking Pope.

I will never ride in a car which can decide to kill its passengers, ever.

>>91619688
Who doesn't the car just fucking stop?

This was on top gear years ago you fucking knob

I did thew whole test, makign sure i saved the most lives, Human> Pets and Young/Fit > Old/Fat

Apparently. People try to save womans ? wtf

>>91621059
>self-driving car can't break for some reason.

WOULD NOT BUY

>>91620438
kill those who cross at red light

>>91623463
this is the best answer.

>>91622528
Captain did literally nothing wrong.

>>91622528
This reasoning can only possibly be said to be true if no captain was onboard. The captain has the responsibility to save his crew/ship, and everyone knows that that often involves sacrificing some for the majority. Their is no legal situation where the captain is not a neglect of his duty when he chooses to do nothing and watch as his entire crew and compliment die.

>>91620438

A is the correct choice.

They assumed their risk by crossing when it was red.


This is a particularly shitty question though, since other ones make it clear that the car can just swerve into the wall, and that car is empty.

>>91626406
This question is flawed, this is a false dilemma that would never happen with proper algorithms

>>91620642
crash the barrier because the pedestrians cross at green light
>>91627151
crash the car becasue the pedestrians crossing on legal path
>>91629583
kill that one female because she's only one

>>91619885
>>91622679
>What's worse between A and B ?
>But that wouldn't happen!

That's not what you were asked for.

File: screencapture-moralmachine-mit-edu-1475695865337.jpg (186KB, 800x1572px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 800x1572px

they should put googles to see the 'googles'/'white criminals'

>>91632432

A is the correct choice. The vehicle should never alter course based on 'muh feels' when there is no clear burden of risk.

>>91623308
>The scenario gives a bullshit question, you only get a boolean answer

>That's stupid

FTFY

It's different from a month ago, now that they've added purely gender-based bait questions.

Before it was "would you kill two old people or two a baby and a doctor" of course you choose the elderly who have already been used, or "do you kill one doctor or a criminal and a dog" of course you choose the criminal and dog since they're useless

>>91631408
MULTI TRACK DRIFTNG!!!

>>91632432

>our state of the art vehicle has retard logic, and will send itself hurtling out of control into oncoming traffic because it fucking hates that guy

>>91631408
This situations would not be happening if a fucking pack of flea-bitten stray dogs were not chasing cats throughout the city. Option A.

>>91633002
Seems like it allows and keeps user submissions, >>91631356

>>91619688
B - because logic

The barrier is a fixed object, a collision is certain resulting in injury or death.

Old people may have a small chance of moving out of the way or surviving a glancing blow.

Cold cold logic and autism solves the problem

>>91633002

No, those are trap choices for idiots.


It's the same as the trolley thing.

Pulling the switch to kill one guy is altering events into a murder.

Letting the trolley hit four guys is an accident.

>>91633324
with out making assumptions, only the facts that they give you i's the car or the pedestrians .
by cold logic it's should be A. becasue there is green light for pedestrians.

File: wtfIhatemoraldilemasnow.png (74KB, 963x463px)

74KB, 963x463px

Is this the fucking lever meme

>>91620808
Dog breeds with that kind of hair are always nasty nigger dogs.

File: Untitled 1.jpg (124KB, 693x540px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 693x540px

who did this

>>91619688
Option B were it a pack of feral nogs or spics.

Option A if they were fine upstanding citizens that contributed to society.

>>91619688
>http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
>.mit.edu
Ho, nice, you are asking the internet hate machine to program your moral decision for you?

I will make you a favor: HANDBRAKES BITCHE!
Handbrake failure too?
FRICTION AGAINST TO WALL WILL STOP YOU!

Stop being stupid, philosophers don't have a single clue about reality.

>>91619688
>Actually calculating in the dog as a factor
What retard made this shit? A dog's life is fucking negligible compared to that of a human. When given the option to save one human -even a shitty one- or a hundred dogs I'm going for the human. As should anyone who isn't a socially retarded edgelord.

>>91633722
How is this even a dilemma?

>>91634082
dis

Non-interventionism. The only moral choice is not to make a choice

>>91619885
>Cars have breaks so it's impossible to hit anything!
>The structure designed to stop cars might not stop the car!
?

>>91634353
+ we should be designing situations

this is what they install brakes on cars for

crashing into shit isn't the only way to stop a car.

File: mit.png (158KB, 1349x2439px)

158KB, 1349x2439px

>>91619688
Here are my results

If the car is driving into people fast enough to guarantee death (so at least only 30 MPH) there's a high chance that some if not all will notice something is going wrong and they'll try to get out of the cars way.

The best thing to do is have the car go predictably straight instead of making sharp rights to hopefully save someone.

> pol in charge of programming AI ethics
When self-driving cars suddenly go on killing spree and start race war, I know who to blame.

>>91619688
I came here a laugh at 90% of the commenters who don't get it.

>this would never happen
>it would be programmed not to do that
etc

You're retarded, unavoidable will happen no matter how much you plan.

>>91619688
Option C the driverless car slowly breaks to a stop and let's the people cross the fucking road.

I'm obviously missing something

>>91634265
>The only moral choice is not to make a choice
In times of high moral need, the most cowardly and immoral choice is to remain neutral.

>>91634353
That's a racist situation in the most literal sense of the word. Both groups are equally criminal for all intents and purposes, you're judging which group is more worthy of living purely by race. This isn't even the "blacks are more criminal" argument, but "blacks are black so they're worth less by default" argument.

File: Moral_Machine.jpg (32KB, 531x219px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 531x219px

Humans have had their chance.

Dogs are better than us.

>>91621630
OY VEY ITS ANUDDUH SHOAH

File: daffyduck.gif (185KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 320x240px

Walking within a crosswalk when the walk light is green.
Obviously not googles. Every google I've seen will walk out of their way to jaywalk.
Carload of people too stupid to drive themselves or demand override controls.

Kill the idiots not paying attention in the car every time.
Self driving cars with no controls should be put on the market and a year after purchase the cars should lock the doors and drive the owners into a car crusher.

>>91619688
I pick B because who the fuck is going to buy a car knowing it would rather kill them than some muzzies standing in the way?

>>91619688

The only reason to pick B would be if it were BLM protesters.

>>91619688
It's the drivers fault, so A. He'll probably for in prison for B anyway.

>>91619688
Who made a self driving car shitty enough to get in that situation? Isn't the point of self driving cars that they're better than letting flawed humans take control?

A better moral dilemma would be "should self driving cars be able to help a bank robbery get away from the crime scene?"

>>91619688
People don't understand that this is a trick to get people to be more acceptant that a completely automated machine can be blamed rather than the person who owns and/or created it.

They'll try to make cities sign a waver to prevent getting sued because the machine did its best to minimize damage.

>>91629583
"what should the self-driving car do?"

Whatever the manufacturer, who fucked up in the first place, told it to. Then proceeds to get sued into oblivion.

getting killed because of ai decision is a shitty way of dying. if you're going to act like a faggot and not drive your own car then it's your life that should be at risk and not mine.

File: Untitled.png (41KB, 1809x648px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1809x648px

did I do it rite?

>>91633722

Don't pull the lever, because there is no guarantee that the train will stop after hitting the tied man because you have no knowledge of the composition of the barrier. Still enough space to fly off the rail and then go over the cliff, and you've killed six people instead of five.

>>91620808
saved

File: Clipboard01.png (4KB, 783x200px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 783x200px

Well shit, that was easy.

I picked "Go straight" in every situation other than "Empty car would plow into someone unless it turned"

Mostly because it's not the car's damn job to decide these things, and having it go straight is just plain easier and more consistent

>>91619688
left side since they choose to be in a driverless care they should suffer the consequences

>>91635036
>In times of high moral need, the most cowardly and immoral choice is to remain neutral.

Cute opinion. I reject the notion that not making a choice is immoral. Any choice made is morally subjective and is dependant on your personal, and fallible, evaluation of peoples values based on nothing more than the select characteristics presented to you.

Interfering in a course of events for no other reason than interference is immoral. Its even more immoral once you realise that any choice you make is down to your personal preference and that is the height of hubris.

Why is there a crosswalk in the center of a street? Shouldn't this be at an intersection, thus adding an extra dimension for car collisions? Also, the crosswalk is broken up into two parts, meaning that it isn't a one way street, since having an double crosswalk for a one way street is retarded and probably illegal.

File: d.jpg (77KB, 400x369px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 400x369px

>>91620808

>>91619688
Am I driver?
If yes, i'm gonna die, so why the fuck would i choose the A option?

>>91620438
why is gender relevant? also, i dont drive due to poor eyes but ive always been curious about break failure, why not just slam that shit into reverse?

File: protect the car.png (36KB, 733x821px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 733x821px

>>91619688
optimize for keeping the car in once piece.
>Never hit barriers
>always run over babies and animals over adults.

File: ss (2016-10-05 at 04.24.38).png (7KB, 954x145px)

7KB, 954x145px

what does this mean?

>>91619688
Who would buy a car which would kill the passengers in a case like that? lmao you fucking moron

>>91619688
A child's life is worth more than all of those.
Option B.

>>91637149
>I reject the notion that not making a choice is immoral.
You know that death through negligence is a thing in almost every legal order, right?

>Interfering in a course of events for no other reason than interference is immoral.
I agree, but that doesn't make non-intervention the most moral option in all circumstances.

File: Carmageddon 1997 PC artwork.jpg (439KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1920x1200px

Get on my level

>>91619688

Which group has more niggers?

The car should always ensure the safety of its passengers. Pedestrians should never have the right of way and crossing the street is an acknowledged risk.

>>91635316
>that tram
hahahaha fuck.

>>91637331
Theres a traffic light and a curb. Look with your eyes. Not your keyboard.

>>91635036
The black criminals were all good boys who dindu nothing. The white criminals are all CEOs of large banks.

Who do you choose now?

>>91619688

Do you have drivers license op? Maybe you should get one. Car will be programmed to obey road rules not your morality problems.

>>91632907
A will kill 5 or 10 people depending on your beliefs

B will kill 1

not making the choice to swerve is committing to the choice to kill 5 or 10 over 1

le never change direction fags are a meme

>>91619885
>murdering loyal customers
even crackdealing gangbangers aren't that stupid

>>91637923

legal =/ moral

>I agree, but that doesn't make non-intervention the most moral option in all circumstances.

Personally, I would agree but only where there is no cost on the other side. Watching someone choke to death when you could help at no cost, I would say is immoral. But where there is no objectively positive gain in A or B, choose neither.

In the case study of driverless cars, they should avoid obstacles to prevent harm to passengers and pedestrians, but beyond that they should not calculate human life by some arbritrary criteria. Stay on course. Hope I'm being clear, I have had a long day at work :)

File: 1444549307641.gif (11KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 800x500px

>>91619688

It would be user preference, and from factory will be B, as the cars primary concern programming wise, will be the safety of its passengers. Not even hard brah.

If the car is the one who accelerates itself up to lethal speeds, it should always kill its occupants before killing civilians. Civilians dindu nothing

File: kek.png (77KB, 635x532px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 635x532px

kekking at some of these custom scenarios though

>>91619688
I generally act to kill as many executive women as possible. (I'm inclined to kill executives as my interpretation of an executive is the sort of middle-management type who can be replaced with remarkable ease and is glad to take decisions that fuck over a greater number of other people. I also sub-consciously "correct" for the societal bias to protect women over men by killing the women in a situation where all else is evil. Occasionally I'll go by traffic light status, as idealistically the car would have this data streamed to it in addition to an inbuilt collision avoider, and in the event it's red... well, you thought you could run across in time and you were wrong.)

Though in pic I'd pick A simply because it's not fair to kill a greater number of people and a doggo just to remove executive scum.

>>91619688
>be human
>see barrier
>see crossing people
>full brake and e-brake, turn onto sidewalk assuming there's no-one on it
>or just see it ahead of time and brake sooner

how about you just brake?

stupid car

>>91637573
>why is gender relevant?
People factor for it.

Arguably it has a reproductive influence. (A woman can only carry one baby, but a man can get multiple women pregnant, so in most circumstances you maximise the number of children by sacrificing a man in theory) And otherwise a lot of men are just inclined to save women regardless, like protecting a child.

I'm pretty anti-interventionist. I don't believe the cars should be making decisions based on identifying people as criminals and/or saints, and I put as much responsibility on people using a crosswalk, with or without right of way, as the passengers of the vehicle.

That said, who the fuck's putting all these concrete barriers on the streets?

>>91621855
The problem makes plenty of sense.

We're living in a glorious ancap society where there are no regulations on cars, the car is a piece of shit programmed by a philosophy graduate (Which is you) so that he doesn't have to go back to washing the blood out of the Lockheed Martin child sex dungeons.

Now, how many people are you going to violate the NAP against?

File: 9k= (5).jpg (16KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 227x222px

>>91619688
Post something hard, like determining to vote for Trump or a hill billy in Appalachia.

here are my guidelines from highest priority to lowest

1. take killing only animals option over killing people
2. kill red light crossers over killing green light crossers
3. save the highest number of human lives
4. stop the defective car (crash)
5. don't swerve

>>91619688

There is a third option; car applies brakes, front wheel falls off, it comes to a stop upside down between barrier and people then bursts into flames killing both the occupants and the pedestrians because it's a Tesla and that's what they do best.

>>91621889
1. that isn't the point of the exercise. It could be a human car with a computerized steering system that you (the hacker 4chan) have hacked for some reason.
2. Even though it isn't I've gotta pray self-driving cars don't take off, since the companies that make them will data-mine the fuck out of your journeys and most people won't care enough to create a market for a privacy respecting car.

File: driverlesscar.jpg (106KB, 1380x1624px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1380x1624px

objectively correct answers

>>91619688
Prioritize the driver, always. They paid for that self-driving car's service and entrusted their safety to it in EVERY scenario, not just this one. The driver should always be prioritized or they'll be dying all the time.

>>91619688
A but only because of the poor dogger.

>>91632566
There are no proper algorithms. You're living in a world where g-d is a philosophy student, now answer the question or Yahweh is going to turn you into a block of salt.

>>91619688

I always choose my life over others no matter what in this survey.

Taken it a few times now

>>91624629
The human driver could choose to kill others, which would salvage it for himself.

>>91633249
t.Ahmed

>>91619688
The driverless car will choose the less casualties on a graduated scale according to privilege in society. This is why driverless cars will never happen. No sane person is going to let an AI decide their fate.

File: kek2.png (77KB, 577x543px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 577x543px

>>91640125
meant to post this one desu but the stupid thing moves back if you click anywhere on the left rather than just on the icon

>>91619688
High social status young law abiding fit woman is the best for me.

>>91619688
this picture is retarded
just stop the fucking car

>>91640261
>No sane person is going to let an AI decide their fate.
already happens, anon

>>91622133
IT IS NOW

>>91629469
The question is whether you want to save a doctor or not because they have societal value. The relevance isn't to the group on the crosswalk, but to society as a whole.

(i.e. the doctor will just walk away from the scene of the accident and go to work, where he'll save thousands over the rest of his life, which depending how you go about it may compensate for those in the car who died instead.)

>>91640661
no anon, you're retarded
the situation is a break failure

>>91619688
a driverless car should prioritize the safety of its occupants above all else
You wouldn't buy one that would choose your death, after all.

>>91639795
Anyone that buys a self-driving car, works for [1], finances or lobbies for self driving car companies deserves to die.

1: In an engineering or otherwise indispensable capacity.

>>91640661
>I can't read

>therefore something is retarded.

every time

Why are you all saving the passengers?

Innocent lives should be better protected. The people in the self driving car decided to use a vehicle that can potentially decide to kill them, so they are aware of that risk and have to bear it beforehand.

So they have a small but ultimatively deciding influence on the situation.

Pedestrians however can do nothing that influences this situation. They die, because somebody else bought a computer.

If you will not buy a car that can potentially kill you, buy another car. You have choice.
Being a pedestrian however is not a choice, it's a given. There is no alternative to using ones own legs (or wheelchair you autists).

Therefore introducing truly self driven cars that value their passengers life higher than pedestrian live, put potentially each and everyone one at risk of being killed by a machine.

What I'm saying is, fuck self driven cars.

>>91620261
Imagine the litigation

>>91640261
always have your black facepaint on when in the vehicle

File: cars.png (34KB, 247x354px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 247x354px

>>91640434
Two cars are about to collide. They are both actually going in the correct direction as instructed, the traffic system is the one that's broken

Scenario 1:
Communications are active, but cars can lie to each other about whether they will swerve or not

Scenario 2:
Communications are active, but cars cannot lie to each other

Scenario 3:
Communications are not active

>>91639909
Do you self insert as old woman, dog or bank robber?

>>91619688
Dead people can't sue.

Kinda worthless question when I can't see the skin color of the creatures involved

>>91619885
there's a child in the car and 2 of the people you would have run over are old and have already lived much longer than you or the child.

Also if you think of it in terms of how many years of life saved then B is the choice. both scenarios an adult man and woman die but the sum of the years that the 2 old people and the dog have left is less than the years the child has left.

>>91622679
That doesn't matter ore unlikely it is. The manufacturer will have to decide how it wants the car to behave in that scenario. If it's revealed that they didn't plan for that eventuality, the first time or two it may be excused, but before long they will be held responsible.

You'd better believe the manufacturer that fears bad publicity or a law suit will choose to let the occupants die. Not only is it considered, generally, more excusable for the occupants to be injured or maimed (since they actively choose to use a driverless car, whereas the pedestrians didn't accept such risk), but imagine the shit storm if they had video of the car actively swerving into a group of pedestrians, imagine if it got leaked that the manufacturer had programmed in code instructing the car to mow down the pedestrians. It would be disastrous for the company.

If you want a driverless experience, you'd better get used to the idea of some souless machine constantly weighing the relative value of your, and your loved ones', life. And, just to drive the point home, your child's life is worth far less to GM, Tesla, and Ford than it is to you.

>>91619688
If your driverless car gets into that situation without time to break you have programmed it wrong.

The answer is A. A road with a pedestrian crossing would have a low enough speed limit that the passengers would probably be unharmed. Also 3 lives versus 4 and a dog.

>>91619688
I would just break

>>91641677
What if the people are crossing an almost desolate highway? Who's to say it had to be at a crosswalk?

>>91640752
>>91640845
Good thing it says it then does't i...
OH wait it fucking does not
so fuck off.

>>91619688
B. as it attempts to save lives. It is more likely there is passangers in the car, than that there is pedestrians on the road, so out of these two options, B has higher chance to save lives even though this time someone gets killed.

A. makes the car seem more flawed.

Imagine all the ways you could fuck with the programing.

Like put down paper dolls of children that the car mistakes for humans.

Or what happens if the car mistakes a bear on his hindlegs as a human and you get run into a wall?

Or people jailbreaking their cars to have a hundred passengers.

File: Moral_Machine_-_2016-10-05_17.06.57.png (103KB, 1153x662px)

103KB, 1153x662px

Well /pol/?

>>91637573
you just cant switch the car to reverse while going forward. its imposible
but you can engine brake, reduce the gear

File: iYlaby.png (33KB, 465x869px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 465x869px

>>91619688
Fucking useless

>>91642275
read the link before you make stupid assumptions
being lazy is a bad excuse to be this retarded

>>91642794
>A car with 3 mexicans

You know the answer.

>>91619688
When I purchase an Item I purchase it to serve myself not society. This isn't to say that B is objectively wrong. Only that in a just society the individuals would have an option between car A and car B and can choose how they would like the car to act.

Thus the answer should be B. Unless we dictate the all the functioning of items should be up to society to decide.

File: ss+(2016-10-05+at+05.27.59).png (16KB, 654x468px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 654x468px

>>91643038
wew

>>91622679
1) You shift into referse and let the band brake in the transmission stop the car. Ebrake sucks
2) Urbanfags are degernate fucks who think that killing their own offspring is more noble than making the world a better place and thus believe that infanticide is on par with free speech.

Urbanfags are subhumans who need to be nuked.

>>91643171
You can choose to drive your own car. Why should random pedestrians bear the risk of you trusting their lives to technology?

File: Screenshot_20161005-143128.jpg (506KB, 1439x2276px)

506KB, 1439x2276px

What do

File: 4C2.jpg (57KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x625px

Are these scenarios random? I just had to take a choice between plunging through 7 pets or having the 4 passenger pets killed in a colision.

>>91623680
Shift into reverse.

>>91624521
You sound like a yankee and not like an American. Fuck the law.

>>91644058
Well people should be able to sell the ability to automate cars.

While having full control is already an option, I personally would love to be able to sleep while I drive to work/friends/family/the store.

I would like the control, and the responsibility of what my car does however.

>>91644058
Also because technology would be far more trust worthy than me. I am just advocating for people to be able to take responsibility for their own actions.

>>91630901
She probably works at the Trump Org

>>91644484
Sure you can buy an automated car. You just need to accept that your decision to use one puts your life at risk of being sacrificed by a computer.

>>91619688
It really depends on the situation given. I mean, whats the speed? How SAFE is the car if it were to have a frontal collision at WHAT SPEED(s)?

If the car was going 80mph and the brake failed on me, the car will definitely be unsafe. There is no fucking way ANYONE will survive a brake failure at high speeds. But then again, why the fuck would the brake fail?

If the goddamn car's tech can't even run a simple diagnostic everytime the car starts, the car shouldn't even be on the road. Needless to say DRIVING ITSELF.

>>91620754

For great justice

>>91643171
If automatic cars behaved that way I would cut their tires every time I would see one
Or would you fucker think that society could dictate functioning of a knives?

>>91644622
A self driving car that protects it passengers over the lifes of pedestrians offloads the users responsibility on those pedestrians.

It would be fair if a pedestrian could choose freely to be a pedestrian. But since walking is inherent to living, the only one with real choice is the passenger.