4 ms·
In that case, "least harm" might mean "find the least accessible location and crash in whatever manner does the most damage to sensitive components", assuming "
by Crespyl 8y ago
In that case, "least harm" might mean "find the least accessible location and crash in whatever manner does the most damage to sensitive components", assuming "go to nearest allied country and crash-land" isn't an option.
- solarkraft 8y agoHow would one do this? I assume none of this is actually implemented?
- dotancohen 8y agoThis is actually implemented in UAVs. If they are out of contact or detect interference for X time, they are programmed to fly to friendly territory. There was a case of Iran interfering with and American UAV and then spoofing GPS to get it to land in Iranian territory.
- rtkwe 8y agoThis falls along the same lines to me as the "autonomous car morale quandary" questions that were really popular for a while. Both assume the situation is bad enough that the pilot has ejected/car can't avoid the accident but the airplane/car has the control authority left to actually make the choice.
- Crespyl 8y agoRight, as the commenters in SO point out, any situation that's bad enough for the human pilot to eject is also almost certainly bad enough that the autopilot won't be able to do much.