3 ms·

The problem with this whole argument is that is supposes the self-driving car has allowed itself to get into the situation in the first place. For example, the

The problem with this whole argument is that is supposes the self-driving car has allowed itself to get into the situation in the first place. For example, the cliff / people scenario suggests that the car was unable to see the problem until it was too late. Obviously, the answer it to make sure that the sensor range makes these situations almost impossible. There will still be an inevitable situation of some sort, but I suggest it won't be quite the simplistic 'moral' problem that is constantly raised.

metasean 11y ago
From the article: >Of course, cars will very rarely be in a situation where it[sic] there are only two courses of action, and the car can compute, with 100% certainty, that either decision will lead to death. But with enough driverless cars on the road, it’s far from implausible that software will someday have to make such a choice between causing harm to a pedestrian or passenger. Any safe driverless car should be able to recognize and balance these risks. An interesting example would be a fast-developing natural disaster, such as an earthquake, that causes falling debris [1] and road damage [2] and as a result quickly and drastically changes available options for many different vehicles and pedestrians in a short amount of time. [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=earthquake+falling+debris&t=ffsb&iax=1&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=earthquake+falling+debris&t=ffsb&i... [2] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=earthquake+road+damage&t=ffsb&iax=1&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=earthquake+road+damage&t=ffsb&iax=...