5 ms·

I'm actually familiar with a situation like this, the person was on a highway at night and came around a corner to see a deer lying in the road and a crowd righ

by foota 10y ago

I'm actually familiar with a situation like this, the person was on a highway at night and came around a corner to see a deer lying in the road and a crowd right behind the deer. There was a couple of people off to either side. They couldn't brake in time to stop and not harm the people on the other side of the deer.

mikeash 10y ago
What's the ethical dilemma there? From your description it sounds like they were just screwed regardless.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Also, an autonomous system would probably get information about that sort of problem and slow down prior to going around the turn. At least, they will if we don't screw it up.
  - Zak 10y ago
    Human drivers can already get information about that sort of problem, e.g. by using Waze. This requires that a human who uses the app has reported a hazard (the act of which could sometimes result in distracted driving), however, I would expect autonomous cars to tell each other about such things in the future.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
  Self-driving cars can also limit speed such that they'll always be able to stop for stationary obstacles. If it's a blind corner, they'll slow down.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - foota 10y ago
    True, but seeing as the article was about the ability of people to modify their car to for instance not do that I see where there could be a dilemma here.
    - blastrat 10y ago
      thank your for saying this!!! Because the article was completely about people REPAIRING technology they purchased, and not at all about mods, modding or modifications.
      - foota 10y ago
        They're pretty much one and the same, how can you allow someone to repair something without allowing them to modify it as well? What if they repair it badly?
        blastrat 10y ago
        how can you allow people to own guns without allowing them to shoot people? how can you allow mechanics to fix brakes without allowing them to break brakes? I dunno... laws maybe? Like, the same laws that can require manufacturers to allow aftermarket competition.
        tripzilch 10y ago
        > how can you allow people to own guns without allowing them to shoot people? even more, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you can repair a gun, but it's illegal to make certain modifications to it, right?
        Grishnakh 10y ago
        >but it's illegal to make certain modifications to it, right? That's correct in the US. For instance, you can repair an AR-15 back to factory specs, you can modify it in certain ways (adding different sights, etc.), but if you modify it for full-auto operation (which is quite feasible actually), you can be thrown in jail IIRC and be subject to a gigantic fine. This system works well: people can repair and modify their property to a certain point, but making specific changes are highly illegal, and the penalties are extremely severe, so almost no one does it. The same can be done for other things if the case for public safety warrants it. So repairing your robo-car should be completely legal, but modifying it to blatantly violate emissions laws or to run cyclists off the road can be punished harshly with vehicle confiscation, $1M fines, lengthy prison sentences, etc.
cwkoss 10y ago
Are you saying the correct response is to swerve in to the group with the fewest people? I don't think human drivers have the reaction time to make these decisions, not sure why so many expect computers to be able to.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Because eventually, computers will be able to.
  - aquadrop 10y ago
    Those computers probably won't get into situation like this in the first place, being able to stop or react preventive. Anyway, it will be so rare an occasion with no guaranteed outcome (it's all about probabilities), so it's not really matters as much as it's discussed. With same kinda of attention you could ask if making and selling ladders is ethical, because people fall from them and hurt themselves.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      > Those computers probably won't get into situation like this in the first place, being able to stop or react preventive. It will always be the case that circumstances can change faster than something with the momentum of a fast moving car could adapt. Somewhere between "you're boned" and "your car saves the day" lies room for a scenario such as this, with potential room for a large amount of thinking. > Anyway, it will be so rare an occasion with no guaranteed outcome (it's all about probabilities), so it's not really matters as much as it's discussed. I agree that it will be rare, and that the concern is overblown. That said, "it's all about probabilities" is no reason something can't be vitally important. > With same kinda of attention you could ask if making and selling ladders is ethical, because people fall from them and hurt themselves. I think there is a substantive difference between the two. We're not asking whether selling a car that has a chance of injuring the user is ethical - we're fine with that. We're not even asking whether selling a car that has a chance of hurting others is ethical (already meaningfully different than the ladder case). We're asking about the ethical ramifications of making particular tradeoffs in "chance to hurt the user" versus "chance to hurt others". It's an interesting question, so it gets a lot of attention. I don't think most of those involved see it as a reason to prevent self-driving cars - long before the dilemma is really relevant, self-driving cars are already safer than human driven.
andrei_says_ 10y ago
They also could not think. If you've ever been in an accident, you know that there's no time for thinking. Reflexes take over. Ascribing ethical decisions to the driver in such a situation is not rational nor ethical.
- rickycook 10y ago
  no, but it's a situation in which a computer could make a decision
  - andrei_says_ 10y ago
    I imagine you mean a choice like "should I run over this child who suddenly ran in front of the car or should I swerve into opposing traffic?"
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
The people crowded behind the deer ought to have sent a person off in either direction to warn approaching traffic of the obstacle. I recently attended to an echidna sitting in the middle of the other lane in on a blind corner. I reversed until I could see straight road for 60 meters, stopped with my car at an odd angle on the side of the road with the hazard lights on to give an indication to approaching vehicle something unusual was occurring ahead, namely my partner and I were on the road on a blind corner. Then we listened carefully for approaching vehicles while we got the echidna off the road. The ethical dilemma lies not with the driver, who is otherwise driving to the conditions, but with the people who have put themselves at risk by performing a task in a dangerous environment without appropriate hazard protection.
nradov 10y ago
A properly designed self driving car would never out drive its sensors in the first place. This is just basic defensive driving. If there's a blind corner coming up then it would slow down sufficiently that it would be able to come to a controlled stop if there's a stalled car or other static obstruction around the corner.
mseebach 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the correct behaviour is to not come around a corner so fast that you can't stop for a non-yet-visible obstruction. Human drivers routinely flout this due to poor risk assessment, but an AI driver would easily be able to to do it.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the correct behaviour is to not come around a corner so fast that you can't stop for a non-yet-visible obstruction. Do you actually practice this? Setting aside legality concerns (many freeways have minimum as well as maximum speeds), if you truly did this at every curve and corner you'd be more likely to cause than to prevent an accident. The number of times there will be something you avoid by slowing down will be outweighed by the number of times your speed differential relative to surrounding traffic causes an accident (and it is speed differential, not speed itself, which is responsible for virtually all "speed-related" accidents).
  - mseebach 10y ago
    For truly blind corners, yes. However, I don't have great faith in my ability to correctly judge all partially blind corners, and occasionally find myself surprised. I don't advocate slamming on the brakes seconds before the turn, there's such a thing as slowing down safely as well. All of this is something AIs will be nearly infinitely better at doing safely than even a minimally impaired (tired, distracted) human driver.

by foota 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

What's the ethical dilemma there? From your description it sounds like they were just screwed regardless.

maxerickson 10y ago
Also, an autonomous system would probably get information about that sort of problem and slow down prior to going around the turn. At least, they will if we don't screw it up.
- Zak 10y ago
  Human drivers can already get information about that sort of problem, e.g. by using Waze. This requires that a human who uses the app has reported a hazard (the act of which could sometimes result in distracted driving), however, I would expect autonomous cars to tell each other about such things in the future.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
Self-driving cars can also limit speed such that they'll always be able to stop for stationary obstacles. If it's a blind corner, they'll slow down.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- foota 10y ago
  True, but seeing as the article was about the ability of people to modify their car to for instance not do that I see where there could be a dilemma here.
  - blastrat 10y ago
    thank your for saying this!!! Because the article was completely about people REPAIRING technology they purchased, and not at all about mods, modding or modifications.
    - foota 10y ago
      They're pretty much one and the same, how can you allow someone to repair something without allowing them to modify it as well? What if they repair it badly?
      - blastrat 10y ago
        how can you allow people to own guns without allowing them to shoot people? how can you allow mechanics to fix brakes without allowing them to break brakes? I dunno... laws maybe? Like, the same laws that can require manufacturers to allow aftermarket competition.
        tripzilch 10y ago
        > how can you allow people to own guns without allowing them to shoot people? even more, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you can repair a gun, but it's illegal to make certain modifications to it, right?
        Grishnakh 10y ago
        >but it's illegal to make certain modifications to it, right? That's correct in the US. For instance, you can repair an AR-15 back to factory specs, you can modify it in certain ways (adding different sights, etc.), but if you modify it for full-auto operation (which is quite feasible actually), you can be thrown in jail IIRC and be subject to a gigantic fine. This system works well: people can repair and modify their property to a certain point, but making specific changes are highly illegal, and the penalties are extremely severe, so almost no one does it. The same can be done for other things if the case for public safety warrants it. So repairing your robo-car should be completely legal, but modifying it to blatantly violate emissions laws or to run cyclists off the road can be punished harshly with vehicle confiscation, $1M fines, lengthy prison sentences, etc.

cwkoss 10y ago

Are you saying the correct response is to swerve in to the group with the fewest people? I don't think human drivers have the reaction time to make these decisions, not sure why so many expect computers to be able to.

dllthomas 10y ago
Because eventually, computers will be able to.
- aquadrop 10y ago
  Those computers probably won't get into situation like this in the first place, being able to stop or react preventive. Anyway, it will be so rare an occasion with no guaranteed outcome (it's all about probabilities), so it's not really matters as much as it's discussed. With same kinda of attention you could ask if making and selling ladders is ethical, because people fall from them and hurt themselves.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > Those computers probably won't get into situation like this in the first place, being able to stop or react preventive. It will always be the case that circumstances can change faster than something with the momentum of a fast moving car could adapt. Somewhere between "you're boned" and "your car saves the day" lies room for a scenario such as this, with potential room for a large amount of thinking. > Anyway, it will be so rare an occasion with no guaranteed outcome (it's all about probabilities), so it's not really matters as much as it's discussed. I agree that it will be rare, and that the concern is overblown. That said, "it's all about probabilities" is no reason something can't be vitally important. > With same kinda of attention you could ask if making and selling ladders is ethical, because people fall from them and hurt themselves. I think there is a substantive difference between the two. We're not asking whether selling a car that has a chance of injuring the user is ethical - we're fine with that. We're not even asking whether selling a car that has a chance of hurting others is ethical (already meaningfully different than the ladder case). We're asking about the ethical ramifications of making particular tradeoffs in "chance to hurt the user" versus "chance to hurt others". It's an interesting question, so it gets a lot of attention. I don't think most of those involved see it as a reason to prevent self-driving cars - long before the dilemma is really relevant, self-driving cars are already safer than human driven.

andrei_says_ 10y ago

They also could not think. If you've ever been in an accident, you know that there's no time for thinking. Reflexes take over. Ascribing ethical decisions to the driver in such a situation is not rational nor ethical.

rickycook 10y ago
no, but it's a situation in which a computer could make a decision
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  I imagine you mean a choice like "should I run over this child who suddenly ran in front of the car or should I swerve into opposing traffic?"

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

The people crowded behind the deer ought to have sent a person off in either direction to warn approaching traffic of the obstacle. I recently attended to an echidna sitting in the middle of the other lane in on a blind corner. I reversed until I could see straight road for 60 meters, stopped with my car at an odd angle on the side of the road with the hazard lights on to give an indication to approaching vehicle something unusual was occurring ahead, namely my partner and I were on the road on a blind corner. Then we listened carefully for approaching vehicles while we got the echidna off the road. The ethical dilemma lies not with the driver, who is otherwise driving to the conditions, but with the people who have put themselves at risk by performing a task in a dangerous environment without appropriate hazard protection.

nradov 10y ago

A properly designed self driving car would never out drive its sensors in the first place. This is just basic defensive driving. If there's a blind corner coming up then it would slow down sufficiently that it would be able to come to a controlled stop if there's a stalled car or other static obstruction around the corner.

mseebach 10y ago

I'm pretty sure the correct behaviour is to not come around a corner so fast that you can't stop for a non-yet-visible obstruction. Human drivers routinely flout this due to poor risk assessment, but an AI driver would easily be able to to do it.

ubernostrum 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the correct behaviour is to not come around a corner so fast that you can't stop for a non-yet-visible obstruction. Do you actually practice this? Setting aside legality concerns (many freeways have minimum as well as maximum speeds), if you truly did this at every curve and corner you'd be more likely to cause than to prevent an accident. The number of times there will be something you avoid by slowing down will be outweighed by the number of times your speed differential relative to surrounding traffic causes an accident (and it is speed differential, not speed itself, which is responsible for virtually all "speed-related" accidents).
- mseebach 10y ago
  For truly blind corners, yes. However, I don't have great faith in my ability to correctly judge all partially blind corners, and occasionally find myself surprised. I don't advocate slamming on the brakes seconds before the turn, there's such a thing as slowing down safely as well. All of this is something AIs will be nearly infinitely better at doing safely than even a minimally impaired (tired, distracted) human driver.