4 ms·

I wonder what the solution to a trolley problem would be for autonomous vehicles. Would a trolley problem situation exist if all cars are autonomous?

jonathanyc 8y ago
Yes, consider pedestrians.
blahedo 8y ago
Yes; but the "one" on the tracks is now the passenger in the car. Does the car divert from hitting a bunch of people on the road ahead if it means killing its passenger? With autonomous cars, suddenly a lot of hypotheticals get really real.
- anonymfus 8y ago
  These ethics standards say yes, because no discrimination between people is allowed, only number of them matters.
  - thisacctforreal 8y ago
    At least incentives for carpooling won’t disappear.
  - king_phil 8y ago
    That's not correct. German Federal Constitutional Court already decided that you can't weigh the number of lifes. The decision was based on "can we shoot down a plane and kill 300 when the plane would crash into a stadium and kill 30.000". You can't shoot the plane down (legally).
    - zaarn 8y ago
      IIRC if there was a situation in form of "3 children on road" and "1 old lady on the sidewalk" and you only had a couple seconds to react, you would be fine hitting either, there is a concept of "Übergesetzlicher Notstand" (emergency beyond the law) which hits exactly these rather rare and morally ambiguous situations. The trolley problem as bystander is a different thing and generally not acting is the legally safer option though in both cases the likely sentence would be minor through various means. edit/additional note: while you can't shoot down the plane legally and no soldier will be obligated to follow such an order, they would likely also fall under the "Übergesetzlicher Notstand". It's not a legal basis but simply a defense.
- _o_ 8y ago
  Yes this is a real problem. With the human driver this is based on his reflexes (or self preservation). The self driving system changes that, someone needs to program (or learn) software to behave one way or the other, either killing the driver or killing people. But the question is if customers will buy car that might harm them deliberately or if country will allow selling of cars who deliberately harm people to protect the driver. This one is not easy to solve, currently the self driving industry is ignoring it, but it will have to be resolved.
sarabande 8y ago
From the report (http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-der-ethik-kommission.html?nn=12830 http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-de...), it seems like both positions (i.e. doing nothing and killing five people, but also deviating to kill one person) would be defensible. One guideline states that an attempt at reduction in the total amount of human damage is defensible (Rule 9, pg. 11), which supports killing 5 people. Another (Rule 8, pg. 11) states that genuine ethical dilemmas, such as life-vs-life situations, should be judged later on a case-by-case basis by a court because there are no concrete moral guidelines by which to ex-ante program a computer by, referencing that a human driver could pick either choice in such a dilemma and perhaps act illegally but not necessarily culpably. I take this to mean that deviating to kill one person could also be reasonably defended.
- bitofhope 8y ago
  >One guideline states that an attempt at reduction in the total amount of human damage is defensible (Rule 9, pg. 11), which supports killing 5 people. How does this make sense? 5>1 therefore _diverting_ to hit 1 person instead of 5 is reducing total amount of human damage.
  - sarabande 8y ago
    Sorry, yes, I reversed the examples.
supernova87a 8y ago
The trolley problem has and continues to be a stupid distraction for blogs and would-be pundits to insert some kind of false ethical puzzle into what is a very clear set rules of the road. There is no trolley problem. When vehicles are on the road and operating according to the rules of the road, there is no choice about whether to swerve to avoid something at the expense of another. Cars are not being commanded to leave the road to avoid crashing into something on the road. You stay on the road, stay in your lane, and don't get involved with people on the sidewalk, etc. If there's a bicyclist, motorcyclist, etc, they are just as much a vehicle as you are, occupying their position in another lane, or in front/behind you. You stop in your lane, change lanes if safe, and that's it. There's no, "sacrifice 1 to save 3" kind of argument.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Trolley problem situations absolutely can arise; whether the system is programmed to recognise and consider them is entirely beside the point. All that matters is how the system actually behaves when tested. But I do agree that I don't see such scenarios ever occurring in reality because computer controlled cars are not going to get themselves anywhere near a trolley situation. They'll put the brakes on long before a human would ever recognise the situation as catastrophic. Almost all unexpected emergency situations are straightforward: the correct response will be to brake hard; the consequences are not ethical but rather dictated by physics. Swerving onto the footpath is an absurd option for countless reasons and cars shouldn't be allowed even if the algorithm is fairly sure the footpath is clear. The closest plausible scenario to the trolley problem I can imagine actually occurring: "An unidentified object has fallen onto the road meters in front of me, and I am boxed in with cars to my immediate left right and rear so I can't swerve. Do I break hard and probably get rear ended or do I break soft and definitely crash into the unidentified object?"
  - andrewaylett 8y ago
    Even then, the chances that the car behind has automatic braking get higher every year. And if they're so close that they can't brake before hitting you, that's _their_ fault, not yours. Brake, every time.

jonathanyc 8y ago

Yes, consider pedestrians.

blahedo 8y ago

Yes; but the "one" on the tracks is now the passenger in the car. Does the car divert from hitting a bunch of people on the road ahead if it means killing its passenger? With autonomous cars, suddenly a lot of hypotheticals get really real.

anonymfus 8y ago
These ethics standards say yes, because no discrimination between people is allowed, only number of them matters.
- thisacctforreal 8y ago
  At least incentives for carpooling won’t disappear.
- king_phil 8y ago
  That's not correct. German Federal Constitutional Court already decided that you can't weigh the number of lifes. The decision was based on "can we shoot down a plane and kill 300 when the plane would crash into a stadium and kill 30.000". You can't shoot the plane down (legally).
  - zaarn 8y ago
    IIRC if there was a situation in form of "3 children on road" and "1 old lady on the sidewalk" and you only had a couple seconds to react, you would be fine hitting either, there is a concept of "Übergesetzlicher Notstand" (emergency beyond the law) which hits exactly these rather rare and morally ambiguous situations. The trolley problem as bystander is a different thing and generally not acting is the legally safer option though in both cases the likely sentence would be minor through various means. edit/additional note: while you can't shoot down the plane legally and no soldier will be obligated to follow such an order, they would likely also fall under the "Übergesetzlicher Notstand". It's not a legal basis but simply a defense.
_o_ 8y ago
Yes this is a real problem. With the human driver this is based on his reflexes (or self preservation). The self driving system changes that, someone needs to program (or learn) software to behave one way or the other, either killing the driver or killing people. But the question is if customers will buy car that might harm them deliberately or if country will allow selling of cars who deliberately harm people to protect the driver. This one is not easy to solve, currently the self driving industry is ignoring it, but it will have to be resolved.

sarabande 8y ago

From the report (http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-der-ethik-kommission.html?nn=12830 http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-de...), it seems like both positions (i.e. doing nothing and killing five people, but also deviating to kill one person) would be defensible. One guideline states that an attempt at reduction in the total amount of human damage is defensible (Rule 9, pg. 11), which supports killing 5 people. Another (Rule 8, pg. 11) states that genuine ethical dilemmas, such as life-vs-life situations, should be judged later on a case-by-case basis by a court because there are no concrete moral guidelines by which to ex-ante program a computer by, referencing that a human driver could pick either choice in such a dilemma and perhaps act illegally but not necessarily culpably. I take this to mean that deviating to kill one person could also be reasonably defended.

bitofhope 8y ago
>One guideline states that an attempt at reduction in the total amount of human damage is defensible (Rule 9, pg. 11), which supports killing 5 people. How does this make sense? 5>1 therefore _diverting_ to hit 1 person instead of 5 is reducing total amount of human damage.
- sarabande 8y ago
  Sorry, yes, I reversed the examples.

supernova87a 8y ago

The trolley problem has and continues to be a stupid distraction for blogs and would-be pundits to insert some kind of false ethical puzzle into what is a very clear set rules of the road. There is no trolley problem. When vehicles are on the road and operating according to the rules of the road, there is no choice about whether to swerve to avoid something at the expense of another. Cars are not being commanded to leave the road to avoid crashing into something on the road. You stay on the road, stay in your lane, and don't get involved with people on the sidewalk, etc. If there's a bicyclist, motorcyclist, etc, they are just as much a vehicle as you are, occupying their position in another lane, or in front/behind you. You stop in your lane, change lanes if safe, and that's it. There's no, "sacrifice 1 to save 3" kind of argument.

sjwright 8y ago
Trolley problem situations absolutely can arise; whether the system is programmed to recognise and consider them is entirely beside the point. All that matters is how the system actually behaves when tested. But I do agree that I don't see such scenarios ever occurring in reality because computer controlled cars are not going to get themselves anywhere near a trolley situation. They'll put the brakes on long before a human would ever recognise the situation as catastrophic. Almost all unexpected emergency situations are straightforward: the correct response will be to brake hard; the consequences are not ethical but rather dictated by physics. Swerving onto the footpath is an absurd option for countless reasons and cars shouldn't be allowed even if the algorithm is fairly sure the footpath is clear. The closest plausible scenario to the trolley problem I can imagine actually occurring: "An unidentified object has fallen onto the road meters in front of me, and I am boxed in with cars to my immediate left right and rear so I can't swerve. Do I break hard and probably get rear ended or do I break soft and definitely crash into the unidentified object?"
- andrewaylett 8y ago
  Even then, the chances that the car behind has automatic braking get higher every year. And if they're so close that they can't brake before hitting you, that's _their_ fault, not yours. Brake, every time.