3 ms·

How about, if you are in the car that is going to kill people, you die first because you made the choice to get in the car, but the poor person on the sidewalk

How about, if you are in the car that is going to kill people, you die first because you made the choice to get in the car, but the poor person on the sidewalk wasn't part of that choice? I get throwing in animals and the car should not avoid animals and kill people. Heck, we have people who do that and end up killing more people just because of their poor judgement.

baroffoos 8y ago
Should have 2 options on the car, first one is for it to drive at a speed where no one will die on impact and the second one is full speed and if something goes wrong you will be the one who pays the price. People might be totally ok with their self driving car moving at 30-40km/h if it meant they could sit on their laptop and get stuff done on the way.
zzzcpan 8y ago
I guess it makes sense. If questions were presented on the meta level about who made the choice, most people would probably agree that those with the choice have to sacrifice themselves first.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Extending this, the people who built the decision software are first on the list to be killed.
- whyte_mackay 8y ago
  I think game-theoretically it is best that the self-driving car always prioritizes its passengers. If it has to quickly hack a competitor's car to avoid a dangerous head-on collision, so be it: That market will sort itself out. Let self-driving cars play a tit-for-tat Prisoner's Dilemma strategy. Classic capitalism at work, because right now only rich people can afford a Humvee, and will come out on top when they crash with a second-hand Fiat Panda (even when it is their fault). A bus with 40 passengers crashed because the driver wanted to avoid a raccoon crossing the road. I don't want my family on that bus, and will pay gladly for something better if I have to. The market will offer me that better option. If it has a customizable setting of "how many strangers to kill, before we kill your family first?" I will set it to "all of them." as I expect others to do so too.

baroffoos 8y ago

Should have 2 options on the car, first one is for it to drive at a speed where no one will die on impact and the second one is full speed and if something goes wrong you will be the one who pays the price. People might be totally ok with their self driving car moving at 30-40km/h if it meant they could sit on their laptop and get stuff done on the way.

zzzcpan 8y ago

I guess it makes sense. If questions were presented on the meta level about who made the choice, most people would probably agree that those with the choice have to sacrifice themselves first.

mikeash 8y ago
Extending this, the people who built the decision software are first on the list to be killed.
whyte_mackay 8y ago
I think game-theoretically it is best that the self-driving car always prioritizes its passengers. If it has to quickly hack a competitor's car to avoid a dangerous head-on collision, so be it: That market will sort itself out. Let self-driving cars play a tit-for-tat Prisoner's Dilemma strategy. Classic capitalism at work, because right now only rich people can afford a Humvee, and will come out on top when they crash with a second-hand Fiat Panda (even when it is their fault). A bus with 40 passengers crashed because the driver wanted to avoid a raccoon crossing the road. I don't want my family on that bus, and will pay gladly for something better if I have to. The market will offer me that better option. If it has a customizable setting of "how many strangers to kill, before we kill your family first?" I will set it to "all of them." as I expect others to do so too.