3 ms·

> So personally, I find your appeal to emotion and thinly veiled "what about the children" shtick disgusting and immoral. How do you counter a utilitarian argu

> So personally, I find your appeal to emotion and thinly veiled "what about the children" shtick disgusting and immoral. How do you counter a utilitarian argument without humanizing the situation? If my friend or loved one were killed by an ill-considered and poorly-implemented automated driving algorithm, no amount of statistics would convince me that the tradeoff was worth it. Who bears responsibility in that case? No one? I suspect that ordinary people won't accept that for a long time to come. At least with human drivers, the courts can decide culpability. At least with a human in the mix, we're all still operating within the same social and legal order.

xoa 10y ago
>How do you counter a utilitarian argument without humanizing the situation? Have you considered that perhaps there is no argument to be countered? That your entire foundation of "humanizing" the situation is foolish and off base? Alternatively, you yourself blithely dismissed the fact that your "humanizing" easily works both ways, in fact more easily works the other way: many of us have had friends or loved ones killed by driver error, tiredness, drunkeness/distraction, or in simple accidents, deaths that would not have happened if a computer had been in control. I don't need any "what ifs" because one of my friends was killed by a drunk driver right near her school. Those millions who are going to die have friends and loved ones too you know. It is in fact a statistics game, and one of economic tradeoffs. That's human life, in fact life in general. >no amount of statistics would convince me that the tradeoff was worth it Which is why we do not leave societal decisions to you, but instead have a system that attempts (with varying success in some cases) to put significant distance between the moment-to-moment emotions of specific individuals and enactment of law governing all. You may not care about this imaginary tradeoff of your loved one vs thousands of other people's loved ones, but those other thousands of people certainly would. So you can and should be outvoted. >Who bears responsibility in that case? It would depend. If it was just an honest mistake that could not have been reasonably caught, then the answer is "no one" and it'd just be covered by insurance, or even the government, so you could say that "society itself chooses to take responsibility for the greater good". We already have a model for this in many, many other scenarios because the basic issue here is very much not a new one. A big, successful example would be vaccines, where we all have to take on a small risk for a very great general good and there is government provided compensation in the rare case that something goes wrong. However as far as individuals go, sometimes there is in fact no one "at fault" or responsible. It's human to always want something to blame but part of maturing is accepting that freak risk is a fact of existence. >I suspect that ordinary people won't accept that for a long time to come. We literally do accept it, and have accepted it for all of recorded history. Much of mythology comes out of the basic recognition that there are forces beyond humanity. >At least with a human in the mix, we're all still operating within the same social and legal order. Debatable, but also beside the point and it doesn't change the objective fact that a human in the mix is a proven recipe for failure. Your philosophy is cold comfort in the face of tens of millions of deaths. You are also ignoring the large percentage of deaths that are purely down to things such as animals crossing the road, or poor driving conditions that are not reacted to appropriately, or where a driver kills themselves (and perhaps passengers) due to human failure but involves no 3rd parties, which automation could also positively effect. You're also ignoring positive utility, which is a critical component to the economic and societal equation just as the car itself is. Self-driving cars change the dynamics for city space usage, for people who are unable to drive due to age or medical conditions, for the poor who cannot afford the capital outlay of a full car, for those who are discriminated against by human drivers, for the environment (long charging times for electric vehicles become significantly less of an issue when the vehicles can simply go take care of it themselves while you're doing something else), and on and on. It's hard to overstate how central this is to society up and down the stack. Your viewing lens is entirely too narrow, which is precisely why individual emotional response is a terrible basis for governance.
- archagon 10y ago
  Nowhere in my original comment did I make the case that self-driving cars should be pre-emptively banned, or that I personally should have any say in the matter. Believe me — I am all for the legal system (and "society") determining the future of this technology. But at this point in time, I am not convinced that people against this future would, in fact, be out-voted. And if that turns out to be the case, it would do little good to belittle their very reasonable reservations. You're also forgetting that the dream of safe and ubiquitous self-driving cars is still unproven and far in the future. What we're actually dealing with on the ground is a dangerous, nascent, and hype-driven technology that relies on a human fallback and has the power to kill.
  - jfrisby 10y ago
    If you are any example, then the reservations are unreasonable and there's plenty of precedent for ignoring them. We didn't ban vaccines because a handful of people are harmed, and we're not reconsidering their use because a bunch of mathematically illiterate loons think they're more dangerous than the alternative. Frankly, there's more reason to ban PEOPLE from being able to drive a car than to ban AIs from driving them -- if only because AIs can be improved and people cannot. All the ignorance of probability, moral philosophy, economics and law will not change the fact that the posture you are arguing from is one of preserving a status quo that costs dozens of people their lives every day.
    - archagon 10y ago
      Sigh. OK, look. Your inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to warn against, but I guess self-driving cars are part of the political shitpile now, too. It's a shame that important issues like this seemingly cannot be discussed without resorting to tribalism and name-calling. We're not in your imaginary super-safe self-driving future yet, and if lives are to be carelessly sacrificed as stepping stones on the way there — because Tesla decided to beta test some dangerous software on actual, real-life roads — it is never going to happen. No matter how much of a utilitarian benefit there might be in the long run.
jfrisby 10y ago
Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? Your attempt at "humanizing" the situation is merely being dismissive of the values of others' lives. Everyone who dies is special and important to someone. To wring your hands and rail against utilitarianism is to try and apply tribalism to moral reasoning. Because this person matters more TO YOU, you're suggesting that we should treat them as if they matter MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE. That seems to me an intrinsically selfish -- possibly even narcissistic -- view.
- archagon 10y ago
  > Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? To me, the key factor is blame. Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. But we can implicate a careless driver. A loved one should not have to die because a truck happened to be the right shade of white — not without much discussion and the possibility of legal recourse. There are many horrible, systemic things we could do to improve the lives of the majority at the expense of a few. In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit. Does the same reasoning apply to self-driving cars? I don't know. If the technology proves as safe as people make it out to be, maybe things will end up OK. But it's not a closed case by any means.
  - jfrisby 10y ago
    We can't put a prematurely-worn brake line in jail either. An algorithm cannot BE "careless", in the legal sense of the word. You are comparing apples and oranges. Carelessness (negligence) is a different problem than a design flaw. An algorithm may be flawed, in which case blame lies with the companies involved in creating it and putting it in peoples' hands. Similarly, any mechanical component of a vehicle can be flawed -- and many can cause an accident if they fail. The companies responsible are legally liable already. > In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit Cars. Airplanes. Vaccines. All of these benefit the majority at the expense of a few. The idea that there is no liability here is absolute and utter NONSENSE. Minimally, Tesla can be sued for the flaw in their product and the harm it caused.

xoa 10y ago

>How do you counter a utilitarian argument without humanizing the situation? Have you considered that perhaps there is no argument to be countered? That your entire foundation of "humanizing" the situation is foolish and off base? Alternatively, you yourself blithely dismissed the fact that your "humanizing" easily works both ways, in fact more easily works the other way: many of us have had friends or loved ones killed by driver error, tiredness, drunkeness/distraction, or in simple accidents, deaths that would not have happened if a computer had been in control. I don't need any "what ifs" because one of my friends was killed by a drunk driver right near her school. Those millions who are going to die have friends and loved ones too you know. It is in fact a statistics game, and one of economic tradeoffs. That's human life, in fact life in general. >no amount of statistics would convince me that the tradeoff was worth it Which is why we do not leave societal decisions to you, but instead have a system that attempts (with varying success in some cases) to put significant distance between the moment-to-moment emotions of specific individuals and enactment of law governing all. You may not care about this imaginary tradeoff of your loved one vs thousands of other people's loved ones, but those other thousands of people certainly would. So you can and should be outvoted. >Who bears responsibility in that case? It would depend. If it was just an honest mistake that could not have been reasonably caught, then the answer is "no one" and it'd just be covered by insurance, or even the government, so you could say that "society itself chooses to take responsibility for the greater good". We already have a model for this in many, many other scenarios because the basic issue here is very much not a new one. A big, successful example would be vaccines, where we all have to take on a small risk for a very great general good and there is government provided compensation in the rare case that something goes wrong. However as far as individuals go, sometimes there is in fact no one "at fault" or responsible. It's human to always want something to blame but part of maturing is accepting that freak risk is a fact of existence. >I suspect that ordinary people won't accept that for a long time to come. We literally do accept it, and have accepted it for all of recorded history. Much of mythology comes out of the basic recognition that there are forces beyond humanity. >At least with a human in the mix, we're all still operating within the same social and legal order. Debatable, but also beside the point and it doesn't change the objective fact that a human in the mix is a proven recipe for failure. Your philosophy is cold comfort in the face of tens of millions of deaths. You are also ignoring the large percentage of deaths that are purely down to things such as animals crossing the road, or poor driving conditions that are not reacted to appropriately, or where a driver kills themselves (and perhaps passengers) due to human failure but involves no 3rd parties, which automation could also positively effect. You're also ignoring positive utility, which is a critical component to the economic and societal equation just as the car itself is. Self-driving cars change the dynamics for city space usage, for people who are unable to drive due to age or medical conditions, for the poor who cannot afford the capital outlay of a full car, for those who are discriminated against by human drivers, for the environment (long charging times for electric vehicles become significantly less of an issue when the vehicles can simply go take care of it themselves while you're doing something else), and on and on. It's hard to overstate how central this is to society up and down the stack. Your viewing lens is entirely too narrow, which is precisely why individual emotional response is a terrible basis for governance.

archagon 10y ago
Nowhere in my original comment did I make the case that self-driving cars should be pre-emptively banned, or that I personally should have any say in the matter. Believe me — I am all for the legal system (and "society") determining the future of this technology. But at this point in time, I am not convinced that people against this future would, in fact, be out-voted. And if that turns out to be the case, it would do little good to belittle their very reasonable reservations. You're also forgetting that the dream of safe and ubiquitous self-driving cars is still unproven and far in the future. What we're actually dealing with on the ground is a dangerous, nascent, and hype-driven technology that relies on a human fallback and has the power to kill.
- jfrisby 10y ago
  If you are any example, then the reservations are unreasonable and there's plenty of precedent for ignoring them. We didn't ban vaccines because a handful of people are harmed, and we're not reconsidering their use because a bunch of mathematically illiterate loons think they're more dangerous than the alternative. Frankly, there's more reason to ban PEOPLE from being able to drive a car than to ban AIs from driving them -- if only because AIs can be improved and people cannot. All the ignorance of probability, moral philosophy, economics and law will not change the fact that the posture you are arguing from is one of preserving a status quo that costs dozens of people their lives every day.
  - archagon 10y ago
    Sigh. OK, look. Your inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to warn against, but I guess self-driving cars are part of the political shitpile now, too. It's a shame that important issues like this seemingly cannot be discussed without resorting to tribalism and name-calling. We're not in your imaginary super-safe self-driving future yet, and if lives are to be carelessly sacrificed as stepping stones on the way there — because Tesla decided to beta test some dangerous software on actual, real-life roads — it is never going to happen. No matter how much of a utilitarian benefit there might be in the long run.

jfrisby 10y ago

Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? Your attempt at "humanizing" the situation is merely being dismissive of the values of others' lives. Everyone who dies is special and important to someone. To wring your hands and rail against utilitarianism is to try and apply tribalism to moral reasoning. Because this person matters more TO YOU, you're suggesting that we should treat them as if they matter MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE. That seems to me an intrinsically selfish -- possibly even narcissistic -- view.

archagon 10y ago
> Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? To me, the key factor is blame. Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. But we can implicate a careless driver. A loved one should not have to die because a truck happened to be the right shade of white — not without much discussion and the possibility of legal recourse. There are many horrible, systemic things we could do to improve the lives of the majority at the expense of a few. In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit. Does the same reasoning apply to self-driving cars? I don't know. If the technology proves as safe as people make it out to be, maybe things will end up OK. But it's not a closed case by any means.
- jfrisby 10y ago
  We can't put a prematurely-worn brake line in jail either. An algorithm cannot BE "careless", in the legal sense of the word. You are comparing apples and oranges. Carelessness (negligence) is a different problem than a design flaw. An algorithm may be flawed, in which case blame lies with the companies involved in creating it and putting it in peoples' hands. Similarly, any mechanical component of a vehicle can be flawed -- and many can cause an accident if they fail. The companies responsible are legally liable already. > In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit Cars. Airplanes. Vaccines. All of these benefit the majority at the expense of a few. The idea that there is no liability here is absolute and utter NONSENSE. Minimally, Tesla can be sued for the flaw in their product and the harm it caused.