5 ms·
This is the opposite of what it should do, but who will buy a self-driving car that may prioritise a person you don't know over yourself. Ultimately, the softw
by buro9 10y ago
This is the opposite of what it should do, but who will buy a self-driving car that may prioritise a person you don't know over yourself.
Ultimately, the software is good enough when the chance of death (to the driver and car occupants) is significantly lower than compared to a human driver.
Externally, self-driving cars should always be safer to 3rd parties.
As someone who cycles, and who has over 300 cycling websites including a 50k user London one... I will happily promote any campaign against self-driving vehicles that externalises it's danger. To effectively ban them from major cities until they are able to prove they are safer for all road users. I'm sure many other groups will feel the same.
- kahrkunne 10y agoSo just because you don't drive means they should kill themselves to save you? Ridiculous. Clearly the morally right thing to do is to prioritize the driver, which the car exists to serve (within reason) I sure as hell wouldn't drive a car that makes the exact opposite moral decision from what I would make, killing me in the process
- buro9 10y ago> So just because you don't drive I do drive too. Most cyclists are also drivers. Feel free to purchase such a car, just don't have the expectation that crowded urban areas will permit vehicles that externalise their danger. There are more pedestrians and cyclists in London, with a much stronger lobby, than there are those who drive here, and even the pro-car press will delight at the chance to lay into self-driving cars.
- nercht12 10y ago> "This is the opposite of what it should do" ... "As someone who cycles, and who has over 300 cycling websites" Something about self-serving? I think you only feel that way because you don't drive. Other self-serving people will naturally want something to protect them. Duh. Given what ScottBurson said, though, it's unlikely cars will be stuck in such a tough spot. In my opinion, it should be optional on the passengers' part. Maybe some benevolent individual doesn't mind prioritizing other people's lives over their own. But those who choose to save themselves will end up having to explain, possibly in court, over their decision, rather than it being the car manufacturer who will never have a "correct" answer no matter which option they choose.