4 ms·
> Nobody at Google is programming these things to calculate the life value of humans. Well, not everyone at Google agrees with you. Yonatan Zunger seems to thi
by archgoon 11y ago
> Nobody at Google is programming these things to calculate the life value of humans.
Well, not everyone at Google agrees with you. Yonatan Zunger seems to think that yes, you do have to work out what the car has to do in certain worst case scenarios.
'A self-driving car, on the other hand, would require that these decisions be specified in advance.'
https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/FMdAD6ckH38 https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/FMdAD6ckH38
And well, he's right. Once you have programmed the car, it will respond deterministically to inputs. You can close your eyes and ignore the consequences of the decisions you made for the Trolley analogs, but that's willful ignorance of your decisions at that point (and bad QA).
- chrisfosterelli 11y ago> And well, he's right. Once you have programmed the car, it will respond deterministically to inputs. This is true, but that doesn't mean that the response is based on the car making moral decisions about the value of the human lives involved. As the commenters below mentioned, the technology doesn't even exist at this point to do anything other than avoid the object in front of you and try not to crash while doing it. Sometimes this may result in a dead pedestrian and sometimes this may result in a dead occupant. That isn't the car making a moral judgement, it's just collision avoidance.
- coldtea 11y agoIt doesn't have to be a moral judgement on behalf of the car -- after all it's just running a collision avoidance algorithm. But the human designers of the "collision avoidance" algorithm will design it with moral judgements in mind. E.g. what to do when face recognition shows 10 kids in from of you and you have 1 passenger in the car that if you turn you'll avoid hitting them but risk his life.