5 ms·

I'm going to take your post apart because I enjoyed it very much... > For all of the theoretical moral questions that have been brought up around self driving

I'm going to take your post apart because I enjoyed it very much... > For all of the theoretical moral questions that have been brought up around self driving cars (the proverbial lever that lets you kill one person instead of a handful, for example), it's interesting/inevitable that this one came up first. Your talking about the "trolley problem" and it is a ethical question as opposed to moral. This is literally a fuckup, bad programing or poor design. We are going to have real ethical concerns because at some point a car is going to have to make a choice pedestrian or occupant - and I know that my elderly father would choose himself if he were in the car, but I might make a different choice.... will the cars ethics ever reflect my own? > I'm sure lots of people will argue that self-driving cars will, in the long run, save a lot of lives, and therefore we can justify some loss of life in the process. They are probably right about self-driving cars saving more lives in the long run, but I don't know that the conclusion follows. It is a tough one, and if there is more loss of life does using a self driving car a bit of fruit off a poison tree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Pernkopf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Pernkopf springs to mind when you bring this up. > From what has been released so far, this feels like a case where a human would have had a high likelihood of doing the same thing Except the fact that when you look at footage of the road when driven on with a decent camera recording rather than the crapy low quality and very much artificially dark uber footage this looks to have been very avoidable. If the guy who was supposed to be there to take over had been looking up right then, we might not be talking about this at all... > As someone with a little bit of experience with the machine learning side of things, I understand how this stuff is really hard, and I can imagine a handful of ways the system could have been confused, which makes it all the more important to understand what went wrong and how we could prevent it from happening in the future. Were talking about uber here... it is also just as likely that they are in way over their heads. > As self-driving cars become more prevalent, things like this will happen and it will be tough to walk the line between over-reacting to every incident and killing progress in this area and designing safe cars that don't make the problem worse. When I read this bit I felt compelled to respond - the life of one victim is too many. In the early days of aviation people knew the risks... But this wasn't the test pilot who died this was a woman walking down the road. I look forward to the NTSB report - they tend to be the adults in these situations.

suresk 9y ago
> Your talking about the "trolley problem" and it is a ethical question as opposed to moral. This is literally a fuckup Right, thanks for the correction. The ethical question I was getting at is "What is the tradeoff of making sure self-driving cars are 100% safe and predictable before we allow them on the road at all, versus the time delay that will cause in which tens of thousands of people will die via human drivers?" My thoughts behind this post came from reading comments elsewhere stating that the Arizona government was ultimately costing more lives by suspending Uber's program than it was saving. I disagree with that assertion, although it seems like my post came across in not quite the way I intended it. My knee-jerk reaction to those comments (supporting Uber) is to liken it to advocating for ignoring deaths in Phase 1 of a clinical trial because there is hope that the drug will save more lives - but even then the comparison isn't apt, because people in clinical trials at least consent to some notion of the risk involved. To me, it is a really difficult, uncomfortable question. And it isn't so much targeted at this particular case - where, as you say, it was more of a fuckup by a company known for not really being careful - but rather at more marginal cases, and there will be plenty of those. Driving is a lot more complicated than people give credit for, especially in areas where you are sharing the road with cyclists and pedestrians, and the ML approaches to self-driving are probabilistic in nature and will be wrong sometimes. You can look at this crash and say "Simple safety measures available today would have prevented, or at least mitigated, this collision", and you'd be right, but that won't always be the case. When you say "the life of one victim is too many", it feels impossible to disagree with you, but it does also mean that we are likely decades away from having self-driving cars, during which millions will die from cars (worldwide). If you accept the premise that self-driving cars will be substantially safer than human drivers at some point, what is the right thing to do?

suresk 9y ago

> Your talking about the "trolley problem" and it is a ethical question as opposed to moral. This is literally a fuckup Right, thanks for the correction. The ethical question I was getting at is "What is the tradeoff of making sure self-driving cars are 100% safe and predictable before we allow them on the road at all, versus the time delay that will cause in which tens of thousands of people will die via human drivers?" My thoughts behind this post came from reading comments elsewhere stating that the Arizona government was ultimately costing more lives by suspending Uber's program than it was saving. I disagree with that assertion, although it seems like my post came across in not quite the way I intended it. My knee-jerk reaction to those comments (supporting Uber) is to liken it to advocating for ignoring deaths in Phase 1 of a clinical trial because there is hope that the drug will save more lives - but even then the comparison isn't apt, because people in clinical trials at least consent to some notion of the risk involved. To me, it is a really difficult, uncomfortable question. And it isn't so much targeted at this particular case - where, as you say, it was more of a fuckup by a company known for not really being careful - but rather at more marginal cases, and there will be plenty of those. Driving is a lot more complicated than people give credit for, especially in areas where you are sharing the road with cyclists and pedestrians, and the ML approaches to self-driving are probabilistic in nature and will be wrong sometimes. You can look at this crash and say "Simple safety measures available today would have prevented, or at least mitigated, this collision", and you'd be right, but that won't always be the case. When you say "the life of one victim is too many", it feels impossible to disagree with you, but it does also mean that we are likely decades away from having self-driving cars, during which millions will die from cars (worldwide). If you accept the premise that self-driving cars will be substantially safer than human drivers at some point, what is the right thing to do?