Sorry old guys

[Kaido]

The robots are coming for you:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/24/autonomous-vehicles-ethics-mit-study/

 

[GagHalfrunt]

In order, cars should prioritize saving...

Me > puppies > good looking women in slutty clothing > everyone else.

And if it needs to be broken down further than that, over 70 and under 30 are the most annoying, so whack them first.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm moving to asia.

 

[Midwayman]

Those 'moral' decisions are such a red herring when talking about self driving car ethics.

1) It assumes perfect knowledge. Real life is messy. We might know there is a solid object there, but things like mist can generate solid returns, let alone being able to tell the age and state of health of everyone.
2) Decision will be based on the law and legal liability, not ethics. If staying on the road and braking hard means I hit a family of 5 vs going on the sidewalk and killing a crippled 90 year old, it means hitting the family of 5 every time. The manufacturer is likely on the hook for these choices. Lawyers will be making these choices and it will always be what creates the least risk legally.

Interesting thought experiments on the relative value of human life (Which BTW insurance has metrics for apparently). I know as a buyer of a car I'd want it to prioritize my life over anyone else though.

 

[Iron Woode]

The Sunset Squad Robots are coming for me? I am not ready for the Near-Death Star.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I just do not understand why anyone would want to buy a car because of the way it looks and drives, and then relinquish all pleasure of driving to a software program. If that is going to be the case, don't buy the vehicle and just get Uber. A lot of Uber drivers will let you sit up front. If you want someone or something else to do the driving then you are no longer the vehicle operator and just a passenger. Heck, let's replace everything with mass transit. We can have varying levels of quality in mass transit (Uber delicious, limousine, bus paddy wagon). While I have a degree of latitude on how a vehicle looks for which I am considering purchase, it is a lot more in consideration for how it feels to me when I operate it that matters most.

If you really need to be on your smartphone that much, let someone else drive your electronics-addicted ass. BTW, I feel old people (>75) do need to be restricted, but this has more to do with declining vision, response time, and the time to make a decision in a situation that greatly benefits from being able to think quickly. But at the same time someone distracted by their Twit feeds is just as bad, IMO, as someone 85 and soon to be dead. Both can go fuck themselves.

 

[squirrel dog]

bring it .

 

[IronWing]

Those 'moral' decisions are such a red herring when talking about self driving car ethics.

1) It assumes perfect knowledge. Real life is messy. We might know there is a solid object there, but things like mist can generate solid returns, let alone being able to tell the age and state of health of everyone.
2) Decision will be based on the law and legal liability, not ethics. If staying on the road and braking hard means I hit a family of 5 vs going on the sidewalk and killing a crippled 90 year old, it means hitting the family of 5 every time. The manufacturer is likely on the hook for these choices. Lawyers will be making these choices and it will always be what creates the least risk legally.

Interesting thought experiments on the relative value of human life (Which BTW insurance has metrics for apparently). I know as a buyer of a car I'd want it to prioritize my life over anyone else though.

This is where China's social credit scoring system could really pay off. Phones can be equipped to constantly broadcast one's social credit and cars can be programmed to swerve accordingly.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

This is where China's social credit scoring system could really pay off. Phones can be equipped to constantly broadcast one's social credit and cars can be programmed to swerve accordingly.

Will they be programmed to intentionally clip the deadbeats or merely choose them when forced to decide between a useful member of society and a freeloader? I'd be fine with that either way.

 

[DigDog]

This is a non-problem. Currently self driving cars (SDC) are working on a visual decisionmaking system, because there are no SDCs. As soon as the majority of vehicles are SDCs, they will work on a logic system - the car knows the road AND what the other cars are going to do. Each SDC will work within a centralized network where the info is available to every vehicle.


You heard it here first (unless Simpsons did it).

 

[DigDog]

This is where China's social credit scoring system could really pay off. Phones can be equipped to constantly broadcast one's social credit and cars can be programmed to swerve accordingly.

You should also get extra points for big tits. We gotta save them titties.

 

[IronWing]

Seems to me that the free market could be used here. Folks could opt to buy higher preference ratings to avoid being hit.

 

[Exterous]

Seems to me that the free market could be used here. Folks could opt to buy higher preference ratings to avoid being hit.

Could we also pay money to lower someone else's?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Best bet is they can just make it a configurable parameter. Then whatever the outcome is, blame the driver for how it was configured, and not the manufacturer. I could see that happen TBH. Either way I think the driver will always be held at fault as you will still be expected to have both hands on the wheel and be fully alert and ready to take over at any time. Even if a driving situation could be better done by the AI, if the AI does fail, the driver will still have been expected to override and do better. It's all in the language of the EULA that will definitely be shipped with the car that you'll have to agree to when you first use it. Heck it might even make you agree to it each time you start the car. It could be something as simple as a popup on an LCD that asks if you have read it and agree to it.

 

[Stopsignhank]

Everybody knows that old people are worth the most points.

 

[local]

Best bet is they can just make it a configurable parameter. Then whatever the outcome is, blame the driver for how it was configured, and not the manufacturer. I could see that happen TBH. Either way I think the driver will always be held at fault as you will still be expected to have both hands on the wheel and be fully alert and ready to take over at any time. Even if a driving situation could be better done by the AI, if the AI does fail, the driver will still have been expected to override and do better. It's all in the language of the EULA that will definitely be shipped with the car that you'll have to agree to when you first use it. Heck it might even make you agree to it each time you start the car. It could be something as simple as a popup on an LCD that asks if you have read it and agree to it.

Maybe not as silly as signing the EULA every start but the law will definitely state that the human "driver" will be ultimately responsible. There is no way the manufacturers are going to take on all that liability. And that is going to lead to requirements of hands on the wheel and possibly eye recognition where if you don't have your eyes on the road the car will stop. It may take a couple more people being run over before the lawyers get this enacted but it will happen.