4 ms·

Ok is there a difference between "writing software for global hawk" and "writing software for self driving cars" As humans killing others is something we do, a

Ok is there a difference between "writing software for global hawk" and "writing software for self driving cars" As humans killing others is something we do, and based on history were pretty good at. We have the ability to justify our actions in some fairly ugly ways. There is a great quote from fog of war (check it out if you haven't seen it) on the firebombing of japan in WWII "LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" So thats war, thats folks who build the engines of war, and send folks out to die and kill. I would say that in writing a missile guidance system, your writing it as "fit for purpose" and should KNOW and COMPREHEND what is going to happen when it is used. Is that going to be the same mind set for someone building a self driving car? Would I, or you, feel any better knowing that I had saved lives in 'theory' or 'statistically' only to know that I had caused actual death with my programing? I don't know how I would feel, I'm somewhat thankful that I'm not facing that dilemma in my current job.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I think you missed my point. Ignore for the moment what drones are used for (a pilot still makes the final decision to deploy ordinance). My point was, software has advanced far enough for unmanned vehicles can fly on their own and navigate without human intervention. The X47-B (the Navy's "Salty Dog" UAV) can take off from an aircraft carrier, navigate to waypoints, refuel on-air from a tanker, and land back on an aircraft carrier deck in the ocean without any human intervention. Its not a stretch to think that self-driving cars are of similar complexity, and the problems around them will be solved in due time as well. There is no reason to have "meat" in the driver's seat anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
- sandworm101 11y ago
  I don't think the pilot makes that decision. They push the button according to essentially a decision flowchart. Their decision is based on evidence gathered by others, wanted lists drawn up by politicians, standards written by committees, and orders from commanders. They do not see the guy's face in the truck and match it to a wanted poster. (Even in than scenario the decision is partially made by the person who created the poster.) The pilot/operator may decide the exact moment the ordinance is released, but he is not the person making the decision to kill. That is a very shared responsibility.
- zer00eyz 11y ago
  A drone isn't the same thing as a car with a person in it. Look at the problem tree for the drone, if it comes to a decision between crashing into the big expensive carrier or dumping it self in the sea, whats it going to choose? You can base this decision on dollars only and still make the right call. The self driving car is going to face a genuine ethical dilemma at some point (or its coding will have to deal with one, as it isn't "self aware"). For the sake of simplicity lets make that "occupant or pedestrian". Are the lives of equal value? How does it choose? Am I allowed to influence that choice as the "passenger" in the car? By getting in the car do I have to agree to some TOS that says the car will sacrifice me to save someone else when it is unavoidable?

toomuchtodo 11y ago

I think you missed my point. Ignore for the moment what drones are used for (a pilot still makes the final decision to deploy ordinance). My point was, software has advanced far enough for unmanned vehicles can fly on their own and navigate without human intervention. The X47-B (the Navy's "Salty Dog" UAV) can take off from an aircraft carrier, navigate to waypoints, refuel on-air from a tanker, and land back on an aircraft carrier deck in the ocean without any human intervention. Its not a stretch to think that self-driving cars are of similar complexity, and the problems around them will be solved in due time as well. There is no reason to have "meat" in the driver's seat anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

sandworm101 11y ago
I don't think the pilot makes that decision. They push the button according to essentially a decision flowchart. Their decision is based on evidence gathered by others, wanted lists drawn up by politicians, standards written by committees, and orders from commanders. They do not see the guy's face in the truck and match it to a wanted poster. (Even in than scenario the decision is partially made by the person who created the poster.) The pilot/operator may decide the exact moment the ordinance is released, but he is not the person making the decision to kill. That is a very shared responsibility.
zer00eyz 11y ago
A drone isn't the same thing as a car with a person in it. Look at the problem tree for the drone, if it comes to a decision between crashing into the big expensive carrier or dumping it self in the sea, whats it going to choose? You can base this decision on dollars only and still make the right call. The self driving car is going to face a genuine ethical dilemma at some point (or its coding will have to deal with one, as it isn't "self aware"). For the sake of simplicity lets make that "occupant or pedestrian". Are the lives of equal value? How does it choose? Am I allowed to influence that choice as the "passenger" in the car? By getting in the car do I have to agree to some TOS that says the car will sacrifice me to save someone else when it is unavoidable?