3 ms·

> it seems like political suicide to even take a position about the few remaining cases But these cases eventually will happen in real life, at which point wha

> it seems like political suicide to even take a position about the few remaining cases But these cases eventually will happen in real life, at which point whatever the car chose effectively becomes their 'position'. > Is it even possible to predict accident outcomes reliably? If not, the trolley problem isn't even relevant and there is no need to decide. That's just kicking the can down the road. As we collect more data and technology improves, we will know the statistical distribution of outcomes under various scenarios. > if it would appear more fair for the car to decide randomly in those cases Random choice is still a decision. What if there are 4 occupants? Should you change the weighting? If not, then you are implicitly saying 1 life is equal to 4, which doesn't make sense.

eyelidlessness 10y ago
> If not, then you are implicitly saying 1 life is equal to 4, which doesn't make sense. In countless ways it does. This is why the trolley problem is a philosophy teaching tool. Utilitarianism is absolutely intuitive, but it isn't the only way to assess the morality of an action.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  I agree, but whatever algorithm the car makes in that situation will be implicitly endorsing one or more ethical philosophies, meaning people who subscribe to a different one will have cause to object.
  - eyelidlessness 10y ago
    Which is why we should not enable machines to make ethical decisions.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      So we shouldn't make self-driving cars?
      - eyelidlessness 10y ago
        Yes, we shouldn't make self-driving cars.
        AstralStorm 10y ago
        Instead let countless drivers kill pedestrians if such cars turn out to be safer to everyone around? The ethics of this escapes me. It is not a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon. We can decide utility of self driving cars either pre- or post-factum, but not given no data.
        eyelidlessness 10y ago
        Cars have very limited utility that can't be better solved with mass transit. Individual vehicles are grossly inefficient for basically every scenario except rural transport. Replacing those uses would nearly eliminate auto accidents and have a ton of other benefits as well.
wmf 10y ago
My point is that the car (really the programmers) should avoid choosing at all. The difference between "the car is programmed to kill pedestrians" and "pedestrians are statistically more likely to be killed in accidents" is intent, which has a lot of ethical and legal weight. Also, if your code has a decide_who_to_kill() function, Dieselgate starts to look like a faux pas in comparison.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Yes, yet by 'not making a choice', you still chose a definite probability distribution of outcomes. That distribution will need to be justified. If some people die and others don't, people will ask 'Why did this person die and not that other one?' I highly doubt that 'We flipped a coin' is going to be an acceptable answer.
- ehnto 10y ago
  What would you propose the software do in a scenario where it does have to decide? Throw a fatal exception, appropriately, and stop operating? I do agree with you, but I'm not certain you can avoid making a decision when your software will inevitably be provided a scenario where it has to do something, but no option is good. All of that said I would be surprised if we expect our cars to swerve and dart around the road to avoid obstacles, I figured it was going to be down to slaming on the brakes in a fraction of a second in most cases. As human drivers, swerving makes things significantly more dangerous in most cases.
  - lobotryas 10y ago
    I would never want someone to explain to my family that the reason my self-driving car plunged over a cliff is because STATISTICALLY I had a better chance of surviving the fall than a child had a chance to survive being run over. In other words, are you or anyone else reading this ready to die RIGHT NOW if it somehow saved the life of other humans? Probably not. I applaud MB for what they are doing. If i an to buy a self-driving car then I would only take one that protects my life and the lives of my occupants (my children, family, friends) above the lives of all other people.

eyelidlessness 10y ago

> If not, then you are implicitly saying 1 life is equal to 4, which doesn't make sense. In countless ways it does. This is why the trolley problem is a philosophy teaching tool. Utilitarianism is absolutely intuitive, but it isn't the only way to assess the morality of an action.

smallnamespace 10y ago
I agree, but whatever algorithm the car makes in that situation will be implicitly endorsing one or more ethical philosophies, meaning people who subscribe to a different one will have cause to object.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  Which is why we should not enable machines to make ethical decisions.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    So we shouldn't make self-driving cars?
    - eyelidlessness 10y ago
      Yes, we shouldn't make self-driving cars.
      - AstralStorm 10y ago
        Instead let countless drivers kill pedestrians if such cars turn out to be safer to everyone around? The ethics of this escapes me. It is not a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon. We can decide utility of self driving cars either pre- or post-factum, but not given no data.
        eyelidlessness 10y ago
        Cars have very limited utility that can't be better solved with mass transit. Individual vehicles are grossly inefficient for basically every scenario except rural transport. Replacing those uses would nearly eliminate auto accidents and have a ton of other benefits as well.

wmf 10y ago

My point is that the car (really the programmers) should avoid choosing at all. The difference between "the car is programmed to kill pedestrians" and "pedestrians are statistically more likely to be killed in accidents" is intent, which has a lot of ethical and legal weight. Also, if your code has a decide_who_to_kill() function, Dieselgate starts to look like a faux pas in comparison.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Yes, yet by 'not making a choice', you still chose a definite probability distribution of outcomes. That distribution will need to be justified. If some people die and others don't, people will ask 'Why did this person die and not that other one?' I highly doubt that 'We flipped a coin' is going to be an acceptable answer.
ehnto 10y ago
What would you propose the software do in a scenario where it does have to decide? Throw a fatal exception, appropriately, and stop operating? I do agree with you, but I'm not certain you can avoid making a decision when your software will inevitably be provided a scenario where it has to do something, but no option is good. All of that said I would be surprised if we expect our cars to swerve and dart around the road to avoid obstacles, I figured it was going to be down to slaming on the brakes in a fraction of a second in most cases. As human drivers, swerving makes things significantly more dangerous in most cases.
- lobotryas 10y ago
  I would never want someone to explain to my family that the reason my self-driving car plunged over a cliff is because STATISTICALLY I had a better chance of surviving the fall than a child had a chance to survive being run over. In other words, are you or anyone else reading this ready to die RIGHT NOW if it somehow saved the life of other humans? Probably not. I applaud MB for what they are doing. If i an to buy a self-driving car then I would only take one that protects my life and the lives of my occupants (my children, family, friends) above the lives of all other people.