3 ms·

The trolley problem (Relevant to autopilot mode in cars)

6 points by neya 10y ago

imagist 10y ago
This isn't relevant to autopilot in cars, it's just fear mongering. Humans have driven cars for a century now and animal-driven vehicles for millennia before that. I have yet to find a single documented case of the trolley problem occurring in real life with a vehicle. This simply is a problem which does not exist.
kozak 10y ago
And the discussion wouldn't be complete without this link: https://www.facebook.com/TrolleyProblemMemes/ https://www.facebook.com/TrolleyProblemMemes/
- soneca 10y ago
  And this guy solved the trolley problem in a very elegant way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
r721 10y ago
Relevant book: https://www.amazon.com/Would-You-Kill-Fat-Man/dp/0691154023/ https://www.amazon.com/Would-You-Kill-Fat-Man/dp/0691154023/
mcguire 10y ago
The most interesting variant of the problem: "Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed."
- nat4ever 10y ago
  Thinking it through, a person kind of develops a sense that all of the interesting things, in this branch of thought experiments, tend to shake out, postmortem. In the heat of the moment, what seems like a plausible bargain threatens to reveal grotesque details amid the wreckage. So, the trolley problem itself usually becomes most interesting when inspecting the identities of any casualties. e.g. What about famous people? What about small children? In this case, the scenario becomes threatening with the possibility of proving that the condemned was sacrificed only to placate mob rule. e.g. What if the real criminal is found later, somehow? Acting with a tendency to ignore the postmortem consequences is probably how a machine will operate. They don't have reputation. They don't consult emotion to inform their decisions. A machine might not question which teddy bear was the most favorite teddy bear, when organizing a garage sale.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  But the one that seems the easiest to explain away; he would be trading bloodshed for justice. The rioters are effectively taking a section of the community hostage.
- torkable 10y ago
  not really, we don't negotiate with terrorists. This scenario will play out in one way in the real world lol.
pseudometa 10y ago
This is only interesting to think about, but this nuanced level of logic would not actually ever be programmed into self driving cars. Once you go past the avoid hitting things level, lawsuits from many vectors come into play, and high risks of false positives. The podcast Hello Internet covered this topic and I'm convinced this is far more relevant to one's personal prejudice in every day life.

6 points by neya 10y ago

This isn't relevant to autopilot in cars, it's just fear mongering. Humans have driven cars for a century now and animal-driven vehicles for millennia before that. I have yet to find a single documented case of the trolley problem occurring in real life with a vehicle. This simply is a problem which does not exist.

kozak 10y ago

And the discussion wouldn't be complete without this link: https://www.facebook.com/TrolleyProblemMemes/ https://www.facebook.com/TrolleyProblemMemes/

soneca 10y ago
And this guy solved the trolley problem in a very elegant way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

r721 10y ago

Relevant book: https://www.amazon.com/Would-You-Kill-Fat-Man/dp/0691154023/ https://www.amazon.com/Would-You-Kill-Fat-Man/dp/0691154023/

mcguire 10y ago

The most interesting variant of the problem: "Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed."

nat4ever 10y ago
Thinking it through, a person kind of develops a sense that all of the interesting things, in this branch of thought experiments, tend to shake out, postmortem. In the heat of the moment, what seems like a plausible bargain threatens to reveal grotesque details amid the wreckage. So, the trolley problem itself usually becomes most interesting when inspecting the identities of any casualties. e.g. What about famous people? What about small children? In this case, the scenario becomes threatening with the possibility of proving that the condemned was sacrificed only to placate mob rule. e.g. What if the real criminal is found later, somehow? Acting with a tendency to ignore the postmortem consequences is probably how a machine will operate. They don't have reputation. They don't consult emotion to inform their decisions. A machine might not question which teddy bear was the most favorite teddy bear, when organizing a garage sale.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
But the one that seems the easiest to explain away; he would be trading bloodshed for justice. The rioters are effectively taking a section of the community hostage.
torkable 10y ago
not really, we don't negotiate with terrorists. This scenario will play out in one way in the real world lol.

pseudometa 10y ago

This is only interesting to think about, but this nuanced level of logic would not actually ever be programmed into self driving cars. Once you go past the avoid hitting things level, lawsuits from many vectors come into play, and high risks of false positives. The podcast Hello Internet covered this topic and I'm convinced this is far more relevant to one's personal prejudice in every day life.