3 ms·
I hate that "dilemma" if whether or not driverless cars should kill its passengers in order to avoid a deadlier collision. If a group of people walk onto the r
by lifeformed 11y ago
I hate that "dilemma" if whether or not driverless cars should kill its passengers in order to avoid a deadlier collision. If a group of people walk onto the road as my car approaches, why should I be the one to die? They made the dangerous action, they should bear the consequences. Even if they didn't intend to, how is my car supposed to determine that? I think asking "who is at fault" is a better question than "how many people will live" when asking who should die.
Vehicles should be programmed for preservation of the passengers. It's the only unambiguous rubric that makes sense to everyone. Preserve yourself, and if you are in the wrong, bear the legal consequences.
- intopieces 11y agoMoreover, why are we asking computers to make decisions we don't ask humans to make? In a split second, a person does not weigh the pros and cons of hitting an old lady vs a schoolbus filled with boy scouts. We just react, and ideally react according to how we were taught in driver's ed. A computer would do just that, only better and more consistently.
- orasis 11y agoIt's all silly philosophical argument. The heuristics will be more like: reduce kinetic energy as much as possible, avoid pedestrians as much as possible in the event of likely collision. If that heuristic is sufficient to save lives in most situations, it'll be good enough.