4 ms·

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car

by CM30 10y ago

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car more than those on the road around them. Is that immoral? Maybe, but if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth. Of course, this is rather less of an issue that it seems, since the article itself points out that other, more normal safety features are being included that lower the risk from accidental collisions and the cars might not be going fast enough for this sort of issue to be a concern in most instances (read, those not involving a motorway or autobahn). And in those cases, well, anyone who might be in the path of such a car in such a situation might be best classed as 'too dumb to live', since high speed roads are not good places for pedestrian crossings or playing chicken. But in the 0.00001% of cases which this issue might be a thing, then they should honestly just value the driver and passengers. Like every other tool and item in human society,for good or bad alike.

ilostmykeys 10y ago
"Me first" is pretty dumb in the global sense. Cooperative (nit me first) games are the way to greater benefit for everyone.
- bsder 10y ago
  > "Me first" is pretty dumb in the global sense. Cooperative (nit me first) games are the way to greater benefit for everyone. Only for games with multiple iterations. In addition, "Me first" strategies often create something fairly close to optimal for a lot of cases--we call them "greedy" algorithms for a reason.
ikeboy 10y ago
I agree. If doing so makes people more willing to adopt driverless cars, it may save more lives. However, if the person would only be injured, it should prefer that to someone else's death (as the person himself would be legally obligated to do.)
- facetube 10y ago
  Do we actually have a model that can predict death vs. serious injury vs. minor injury in advance?
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Perhaps not perfectly, but surely there are scenarios where it is predictable.
    - ygjb 10y ago
      Can you identify a scenario where an injury is possible that death cannot be an outcome?
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I actually got a rather deep insight from the article, which was "How would an autonomous car get itself into such a situation?" Such a car would not drive so close to a truck that it could not simply stop should the truck lose its cargo. It would not approach a tunnel at a rate of speed where it could not brake to avoid an obstruction. People do that because they ignore risk in favor of some perceived time advantage, but robots don't. If we imagine the sets of circumstances that require a life and death decision to occur while driving safely, suddenly the number becomes vanishingly small. Things like "an earthquake occurs and the bridge you are on loses a section." or "a power transformer explodes and drops a power line across the road", or "a plane crashes into the ground in front of you." Under these extreme situations how the human in control would perform is practically a random number function. That a robot would minimize the loss of life, seems like the "correct" choice regardless.
- CM30 10y ago
  Yeah, the chance of such a situation occurring is pretty much slim to none. A driverless car isn't going to be driving like a maniac at many times the speed limit and putting itself into dangerous situations at every opportunity. Then again, given some of the stuff there's a market for, I guess there is the worry that 'driverless car aimed at person who wants to be in James Bond/Bullitt/whatever' might turn out to be a selling point for some manufacturers with questionable ethics.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    Knight Rider, surely.
- facetube 10y ago
  Completely agree. The self-driving car doesn't need to pick who to kill, mostly because it started braking 1.5 seconds ago.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  I think there's a positive feedback loop in there too... As cars go autonomous, they'll communicate faster, drive more predictably, and generally be safer. At some point - 1%, 5%, 20%? - the network as a whole will benefit with less accidents and less of the resulting delays which means human drivers will be less likely to be late which takes away anxiety and potential distractions, making it even safer. Therefore, I think these "Do I kill A or B?" scenarios become less frequent over time. I just hope that "over time" part happens quickly... or the first "bad" choice by an autonomous car will delay the industry by years.
csydas 10y ago
I think the issue is slightly misguided as well, but not quite in that way. I think it's sort of natural that the idea of a merged driver and driverless vehicle lanes will eventually vanish, and sections of highway and city roads will eventually give way to entirely autonomous solutions. Segregating the driving population in this way removes a lot of the concerns, since now when faced with the issue of "wayward child in road", a single car doesn't have to make a decision, but instead, collectively cars decide how to mitigate the situation. This does come with quite a few caveats in regards to road surveillance and infrastructure and legal turnabout, but it makes a lot more sense than trying to merge the two completely different styles of driving. Essentially that is the problem that will cause accidents; pretty much everyone who drive should know that traffic patterns that deviate from what is expected and currently existing on the road are common causes for accidents. Trying to merge two completely separate types of driving just seems like a fools errand, though I do understand that the alternative would probably be a bit too much for the current public and governments. Ultimately though, I think that while the ethical concerns are real, they become greatly diminished along with the natural evolution of where autonomous cars take city infrastructure.
ucarion 10y ago
People who worry about the moral decision-making of a car are pointing out that there's a sort of ethics reduction (in the math sense of the word) here: deciding on the ideal driverless car is about as hard as deciding on what the ideal moral framework is. The car must have some routine to deal with trolley problems somewhere.
Shivetya 10y ago
If we follow Asimov, your car will take the hit and likely that is how it should be. The car's only judgment call should be, can I avoid this threat without threatening another? You run into a cascade problem if your car decides to weigh the fates of other cars by trying to run some value comparison. Who sets the values? Can they be spoofed, and so on. So first rule is that it cannot harm another vehicle to save itself. You aren't really part of the equation here, you cannot be. By the act of using the autonomous automobile you and it become one for sake of the how the rules play out.
unclebucknasty 10y ago
>if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth It seems that, as driverless cars become more common, you are more frequently on the other side of the equation.
mcbits 10y ago
Putting the occupants' safety first is probably the best default to start with, as it's pretty close to what we have already, although given enough time, there will surely be cases where the car chooses to save the driver when the driver would have sacrificed themselves willingly or by some miscalculation. But I think the ethical dilemma will end up solving itself over time, as well. When a car has to make an emergency decision, it will make a 5-10 millisecond call to its attorney, Dr. Watson, Esq., who will review all case history and settlements, run background checks on the potential victims, weigh all the factors against the current political climate, and direct the car to choose the accident with the lowest expected liability.

by CM30 10y ago

ilostmykeys 10y ago

"Me first" is pretty dumb in the global sense. Cooperative (nit me first) games are the way to greater benefit for everyone.

bsder 10y ago
> "Me first" is pretty dumb in the global sense. Cooperative (nit me first) games are the way to greater benefit for everyone. Only for games with multiple iterations. In addition, "Me first" strategies often create something fairly close to optimal for a lot of cases--we call them "greedy" algorithms for a reason.

ikeboy 10y ago

I agree. If doing so makes people more willing to adopt driverless cars, it may save more lives. However, if the person would only be injured, it should prefer that to someone else's death (as the person himself would be legally obligated to do.)

facetube 10y ago
Do we actually have a model that can predict death vs. serious injury vs. minor injury in advance?
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Perhaps not perfectly, but surely there are scenarios where it is predictable.
  - ygjb 10y ago
    Can you identify a scenario where an injury is possible that death cannot be an outcome?

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I actually got a rather deep insight from the article, which was "How would an autonomous car get itself into such a situation?" Such a car would not drive so close to a truck that it could not simply stop should the truck lose its cargo. It would not approach a tunnel at a rate of speed where it could not brake to avoid an obstruction. People do that because they ignore risk in favor of some perceived time advantage, but robots don't. If we imagine the sets of circumstances that require a life and death decision to occur while driving safely, suddenly the number becomes vanishingly small. Things like "an earthquake occurs and the bridge you are on loses a section." or "a power transformer explodes and drops a power line across the road", or "a plane crashes into the ground in front of you." Under these extreme situations how the human in control would perform is practically a random number function. That a robot would minimize the loss of life, seems like the "correct" choice regardless.

CM30 10y ago
Yeah, the chance of such a situation occurring is pretty much slim to none. A driverless car isn't going to be driving like a maniac at many times the speed limit and putting itself into dangerous situations at every opportunity. Then again, given some of the stuff there's a market for, I guess there is the worry that 'driverless car aimed at person who wants to be in James Bond/Bullitt/whatever' might turn out to be a selling point for some manufacturers with questionable ethics.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Knight Rider, surely.
facetube 10y ago
Completely agree. The self-driving car doesn't need to pick who to kill, mostly because it started braking 1.5 seconds ago.
caseysoftware 10y ago
I think there's a positive feedback loop in there too... As cars go autonomous, they'll communicate faster, drive more predictably, and generally be safer. At some point - 1%, 5%, 20%? - the network as a whole will benefit with less accidents and less of the resulting delays which means human drivers will be less likely to be late which takes away anxiety and potential distractions, making it even safer. Therefore, I think these "Do I kill A or B?" scenarios become less frequent over time. I just hope that "over time" part happens quickly... or the first "bad" choice by an autonomous car will delay the industry by years.

csydas 10y ago

I think the issue is slightly misguided as well, but not quite in that way. I think it's sort of natural that the idea of a merged driver and driverless vehicle lanes will eventually vanish, and sections of highway and city roads will eventually give way to entirely autonomous solutions. Segregating the driving population in this way removes a lot of the concerns, since now when faced with the issue of "wayward child in road", a single car doesn't have to make a decision, but instead, collectively cars decide how to mitigate the situation. This does come with quite a few caveats in regards to road surveillance and infrastructure and legal turnabout, but it makes a lot more sense than trying to merge the two completely different styles of driving. Essentially that is the problem that will cause accidents; pretty much everyone who drive should know that traffic patterns that deviate from what is expected and currently existing on the road are common causes for accidents. Trying to merge two completely separate types of driving just seems like a fools errand, though I do understand that the alternative would probably be a bit too much for the current public and governments. Ultimately though, I think that while the ethical concerns are real, they become greatly diminished along with the natural evolution of where autonomous cars take city infrastructure.

ucarion 10y ago

People who worry about the moral decision-making of a car are pointing out that there's a sort of ethics reduction (in the math sense of the word) here: deciding on the ideal driverless car is about as hard as deciding on what the ideal moral framework is. The car must have some routine to deal with trolley problems somewhere.

Shivetya 10y ago

If we follow Asimov, your car will take the hit and likely that is how it should be. The car's only judgment call should be, can I avoid this threat without threatening another? You run into a cascade problem if your car decides to weigh the fates of other cars by trying to run some value comparison. Who sets the values? Can they be spoofed, and so on. So first rule is that it cannot harm another vehicle to save itself. You aren't really part of the equation here, you cannot be. By the act of using the autonomous automobile you and it become one for sake of the how the rules play out.

unclebucknasty 10y ago

>if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth It seems that, as driverless cars become more common, you are more frequently on the other side of the equation.

mcbits 10y ago

Putting the occupants' safety first is probably the best default to start with, as it's pretty close to what we have already, although given enough time, there will surely be cases where the car chooses to save the driver when the driver would have sacrificed themselves willingly or by some miscalculation. But I think the ethical dilemma will end up solving itself over time, as well. When a car has to make an emergency decision, it will make a 5-10 millisecond call to its attorney, Dr. Watson, Esq., who will review all case history and settlements, run background checks on the potential victims, weigh all the factors against the current political climate, and direct the car to choose the accident with the lowest expected liability.