4 ms·

I would hope that the logic in saving the driver would ultimately save the pedestrian. I'd think that the "collision" of any object, including that of the body

I would hope that the logic in saving the driver would ultimately save the pedestrian. I'd think that the "collision" of any object, including that of the body of a human being, could potentially do damage to the driver.

Someone 10y ago
In extreme corners of the state space that doesn't hold, but one would hope self-driving cars would manage to stay far away from most of those corners. For example, if a self-driving car is heading towards a concrete wall at speed, the safest thing to do is decelerate just fast enough to come to a stop touching or just after hitting the wall. If there are pedestrians between car and wall, Mercedes' statement seems to imply they will use the pedestrians as an additional crumple zone, rather than to decelerate really fast in order to not hit them, even if that saves lives and only causes the passengers some bruises. More realistic: a pedestrian starts crossing the road between parked vans with darkened windows; a self-driving car doesn't see him until 10 meters away. Should the car swerve into the first van or into oncoming traffic to prevent the collision with a pedestrian, just brake as fast as possible, or brake as fast as is safe for the driver and the passengers? If the car knows the passengers did not put on their seat belts and are carrying loose heavy baggage on the rear shelf, should the car decide to decelerate very lightly, pedestrian be damned? What if this is in a pedestrian zone, and the driver overrode the car's intentions to keep speed below 10mph? Another extreme example: a Mercedes is driving to pick up its owner, and has to decide between lightly harming its owner and killing a stranger. What will it do? I doubt Mercedes' statement ("zeroeth law of robotics: A robot may not injure its owner or, through inaction, allow its owner to come to harm") will hold up in court, and also whether they will really implement it to the limit.

Someone 10y ago

In extreme corners of the state space that doesn't hold, but one would hope self-driving cars would manage to stay far away from most of those corners. For example, if a self-driving car is heading towards a concrete wall at speed, the safest thing to do is decelerate just fast enough to come to a stop touching or just after hitting the wall. If there are pedestrians between car and wall, Mercedes' statement seems to imply they will use the pedestrians as an additional crumple zone, rather than to decelerate really fast in order to not hit them, even if that saves lives and only causes the passengers some bruises. More realistic: a pedestrian starts crossing the road between parked vans with darkened windows; a self-driving car doesn't see him until 10 meters away. Should the car swerve into the first van or into oncoming traffic to prevent the collision with a pedestrian, just brake as fast as possible, or brake as fast as is safe for the driver and the passengers? If the car knows the passengers did not put on their seat belts and are carrying loose heavy baggage on the rear shelf, should the car decide to decelerate very lightly, pedestrian be damned? What if this is in a pedestrian zone, and the driver overrode the car's intentions to keep speed below 10mph? Another extreme example: a Mercedes is driving to pick up its owner, and has to decide between lightly harming its owner and killing a stranger. What will it do? I doubt Mercedes' statement ("zeroeth law of robotics: A robot may not injure its owner or, through inaction, allow its owner to come to harm") will hold up in court, and also whether they will really implement it to the limit.