5 ms·

" A self-driving car identifies a group of children running into the road. There is no time to stop. To swerve around them would drive the car into a speeding t

by kbart 10y ago

" A self-driving car identifies a group of children running into the road. There is no time to stop. To swerve around them would drive the car into a speeding truck on one side or over a cliff on the other, bringing certain death to anybody inside." Call me cynical, but such behavior seems logical. I would not drive myself manually to a certain death to save pedestrians that violated traffic rules, so why should autopilot do that to me? That raises an interesting possibility of future cars marketed by their "ethics".

hoppa_liza 10y ago
> pedestrians that violated traffic rules You might be able to make this call as a human, but can we assume the car is capable of deciding on that?
- kbart 10y ago
  I assume autopilot would always drive according to rules (I doubt they would get licensed otherwise), so if pedestrians pop up in front of a car, I it's likely their fault.
  - dbg31415 10y ago
    I do find it hard to imagine a situation where the auto pilot has to choose one life over another -- I've never had to choose that and I've been driving 20+ years... Someone runs out into the street, likely the car can brake or swerve. I've stopped for my share of kids chasing soccer balls without so much as a spilled latte. Deer, moose, cattle on the road maybe it's different... The car will have to determine where to place the impact. But hopefully cars with more censors avoid these things better than people do. We are pretty bad at spotting deer...
- bigkm 10y ago
  Are we going to see driving tests for autonomous cars ?
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Hopefully we will. It would be unethical to allow untested drivers on the road, automated or manual.
inimino 10y ago
Pedestrians specified to be children. So, as a child, you never ran out into the street? If it was your child would that change anything?
- kbart 10y ago
  Ah, a good, old "let's think of the children" argument. As I said, autonomous cars should always drive according to rules, and places, where children are expected to run into a street (suburbs, school areas etc.), usually have speed limit of 30 km/h (at least in Europe), so it's hard to imagine a deadly scenario at such speeds. However, if children managed to run into a highway, well, then blame their parents for neglect as this such not happen. To fantasize even more, what if there are my children in a car too? Should autopilot kill them as well to save these children on a road?
  - inimino 10y ago
    I'm not making a "think of the children" argument here, but rather pointing out the argument that you didn't really address when you changed the "group of children" to "pedestrians that violated traffic rules". If you actually saw a child appear in the street in front of your car, I don't think the violation of traffic laws would be part of your calculations in the moment. Yes, the scenario given is absurdly contrived, but the issue is real. In any collision avoidance scenario, once things have already gone wrong, you have to make tradeoffs, sometimes involving potential dangers to both people inside and outside of the vehicle. If children run into the highway, blaming the parents doesn't answer the question of what the car should do. If nobody else is on the road, you can swerve. What if there is a vehicle in the lane next to you, will you swerve towards it and risk a minor accident to avoid one that is more likely to be fatal? How much risk would be acceptable to avoid certainly killing a pedestrian? In highway driving sometimes bad things suddenly happen directly in front of you and the only choice is between different accidents. Humans make these decisions and autonomous vehicles are going to have to make them too.
    - kbart 10y ago
      Yes, these are (and with autopilot hopefully will be even more) very rare corner cases, but in such cases people instinctively act to survive, so autopilot doing the same is a logical step imho. Of course, if there's a choice between minor accident and safety of pedestrians (children or not, that doesn't really make any difference), autopilot should risk it. But the original case here was "certain death vs children on the street" which I still believe that autopilot should never do.

by kbart 10y ago

hoppa_liza 10y ago

> pedestrians that violated traffic rules You might be able to make this call as a human, but can we assume the car is capable of deciding on that?

kbart 10y ago
I assume autopilot would always drive according to rules (I doubt they would get licensed otherwise), so if pedestrians pop up in front of a car, I it's likely their fault.
- dbg31415 10y ago
  I do find it hard to imagine a situation where the auto pilot has to choose one life over another -- I've never had to choose that and I've been driving 20+ years... Someone runs out into the street, likely the car can brake or swerve. I've stopped for my share of kids chasing soccer balls without so much as a spilled latte. Deer, moose, cattle on the road maybe it's different... The car will have to determine where to place the impact. But hopefully cars with more censors avoid these things better than people do. We are pretty bad at spotting deer...
bigkm 10y ago
Are we going to see driving tests for autonomous cars ?
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Hopefully we will. It would be unethical to allow untested drivers on the road, automated or manual.

inimino 10y ago

Pedestrians specified to be children. So, as a child, you never ran out into the street? If it was your child would that change anything?

kbart 10y ago
Ah, a good, old "let's think of the children" argument. As I said, autonomous cars should always drive according to rules, and places, where children are expected to run into a street (suburbs, school areas etc.), usually have speed limit of 30 km/h (at least in Europe), so it's hard to imagine a deadly scenario at such speeds. However, if children managed to run into a highway, well, then blame their parents for neglect as this such not happen. To fantasize even more, what if there are my children in a car too? Should autopilot kill them as well to save these children on a road?
- inimino 10y ago
  I'm not making a "think of the children" argument here, but rather pointing out the argument that you didn't really address when you changed the "group of children" to "pedestrians that violated traffic rules". If you actually saw a child appear in the street in front of your car, I don't think the violation of traffic laws would be part of your calculations in the moment. Yes, the scenario given is absurdly contrived, but the issue is real. In any collision avoidance scenario, once things have already gone wrong, you have to make tradeoffs, sometimes involving potential dangers to both people inside and outside of the vehicle. If children run into the highway, blaming the parents doesn't answer the question of what the car should do. If nobody else is on the road, you can swerve. What if there is a vehicle in the lane next to you, will you swerve towards it and risk a minor accident to avoid one that is more likely to be fatal? How much risk would be acceptable to avoid certainly killing a pedestrian? In highway driving sometimes bad things suddenly happen directly in front of you and the only choice is between different accidents. Humans make these decisions and autonomous vehicles are going to have to make them too.
  - kbart 10y ago
    Yes, these are (and with autopilot hopefully will be even more) very rare corner cases, but in such cases people instinctively act to survive, so autopilot doing the same is a logical step imho. Of course, if there's a choice between minor accident and safety of pedestrians (children or not, that doesn't really make any difference), autopilot should risk it. But the original case here was "certain death vs children on the street" which I still believe that autopilot should never do.