5 ms·

If your wife or child got mowed down by an autonomous car would you be thinking "Oh well, that's progress!" Is it ethical to build something knowing it will de

by LIV2 7y ago

If your wife or child got mowed down by an autonomous car would you be thinking "Oh well, that's progress!" Is it ethical to build something knowing it will definitely kill random people until you perfect the technology? Will auto makers be held accountable for any wrongful deaths caused by bugs?

ryandvm 7y ago
Probably not, but are emotional responses the correct criteria for rational decision-making?
stagger87 7y ago
Is there a name for this type of argument? I've seen it a lot with certain types of people, one that ignores any logic from the discussion and uses a sort of trap that makes you appear insensitive if you try to argue it? Is it appeal to pity?
- MPetitt 7y ago
  Feels like a combo? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
- beerandt 7y ago
  The good place makes me think it's a version of the trolly problem. IANATOMP.
  - LIV2 7y ago
    Pretty much what I was trying to get at
  - ben_w 7y ago
    What does TOMP stand for?
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Teacher of Moral Philosophy. Watch the show, it's great.
ben_w 7y ago
A fascinating display of the human mind. If your wife or child was mowed down by a normal car, would you be more supportive of autonomous ones? If your wife or child wasn’t mowed down because the car was autonomous rather than manual (or vice-versa), would you even notice? Yet, which of human or AI drivers get banned by 2040 depends on convincing people like you — assuming I am inferring correctly that your question is rhetorical and the answer is “no, obviously”.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  There is no good reason to think pre-programmed computers are going to outperform human drivers when it counts. It's a prediction about the future, someting that has not happened yet. It's most likely wrong. No amount of marketing hype will change that.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I can think of lots of theoretical reasons computers might outperform human drivers. A computer won't get distracted, will have nearly instantaneous reaction times, and can literally have eyes in the back of its head. I don't know if that will be enough to make the difference, but I can certainly see how it could be.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > "might" You're still making a prediction about the future. Some predictions are safer than others: I predict I will see the sun rise tomorrow. Some predictions have little rational basis in reality: I predict you will agree with me. Your prediction about automomous cars being safer than human drivers? That falls somewhere in the middle. From my perspective, all computer vision systems are abysmal crap and spend orders of magnitude more power to accomplish results many orders of magnitude less impressive than the human brain is capable of. The human brain uses something like 10-20 watts, how much CV/ML can you do with 10-20 watts? Not much at all. There is clearly a huge disconnect between our current approach to solving the problem technologically and how the evolutionary wetware solves the problem. That gap may be bridged sometime in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. I think the problem is being approached from the wrong direction, like trying to drive a screw with a hammer. Maybe we'll still get the job done, but I do not consider that a foregone conclusion.
mythz 7y ago
aka anti-vaxxer logic, anecdotes > real world stats. There are ~1.25 million car deaths per year (20-50 million injured or disabled), a lot of room for "progress" to save countless lives.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > There are ~1.25 million car deaths per year (20-50 million injured or disabled), a lot of room for "progress" to save countless lives. The vast majority of those occur in areas that will not see autonomous vehicles for a very long time, and have a lot of environmental challenges that make it much harder for an autonomous vehicle to outperform a human.
  - mythz 7y ago
    and? it's not worth doing unless every life can be saved? The point is thousands of people die per day at the hands of human drivers. The sooner we can transition to autonomous vehicles, the sooner they'll start saving lives.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > and? it's not worth doing unless every life can be saved? I did not say or imply that. > The point is thousands of people die per day at the hands of human drivers. Yes, and thousands will die every day for quite a long time. You make it sound like autonomous vehicles are going to make a significant dent in that number. > The sooner we can transition to autonomous vehicles, the sooner they'll start saving lives. This is quite true. It will just be limited to lives in developed nations and a few select other major cities.
  - throwaway66920 7y ago
    You’re stringing together a few questionable statements here. It’s true that the vast majority of cars won’t be autonomous for “a very long time” so the vast majority of deaths won’t be prevented. But what’s your point? That if the vast majority of the problem can’t be addressed quickly it’s not worth exploring? On a quick search, 30% of fatalities involve alcohol. 7% involve rain (the most common condition that causes crashes). Cars don’t actually need to be better than humans, or even as good as the average human. They just need to be better than the bottom 5th percentile, prefer safe driving, and not get distracted/drunk.
traderjane 7y ago
Do you not put your hands behind the car wheel with moral confidence, the confidence that you are okay with the sum of your action? Do you view the medical system differently?

by LIV2 7y ago

ryandvm 7y ago

Probably not, but are emotional responses the correct criteria for rational decision-making?

stagger87 7y ago

Is there a name for this type of argument? I've seen it a lot with certain types of people, one that ignores any logic from the discussion and uses a sort of trap that makes you appear insensitive if you try to argue it? Is it appeal to pity?

MPetitt 7y ago
Feels like a combo? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
beerandt 7y ago
The good place makes me think it's a version of the trolly problem. IANATOMP.
- LIV2 7y ago
  Pretty much what I was trying to get at
- ben_w 7y ago
  What does TOMP stand for?
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Teacher of Moral Philosophy. Watch the show, it's great.

ben_w 7y ago

A fascinating display of the human mind. If your wife or child was mowed down by a normal car, would you be more supportive of autonomous ones? If your wife or child wasn’t mowed down because the car was autonomous rather than manual (or vice-versa), would you even notice? Yet, which of human or AI drivers get banned by 2040 depends on convincing people like you — assuming I am inferring correctly that your question is rhetorical and the answer is “no, obviously”.

jakeogh 7y ago
There is no good reason to think pre-programmed computers are going to outperform human drivers when it counts. It's a prediction about the future, someting that has not happened yet. It's most likely wrong. No amount of marketing hype will change that.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I can think of lots of theoretical reasons computers might outperform human drivers. A computer won't get distracted, will have nearly instantaneous reaction times, and can literally have eyes in the back of its head. I don't know if that will be enough to make the difference, but I can certainly see how it could be.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > "might" You're still making a prediction about the future. Some predictions are safer than others: I predict I will see the sun rise tomorrow. Some predictions have little rational basis in reality: I predict you will agree with me. Your prediction about automomous cars being safer than human drivers? That falls somewhere in the middle. From my perspective, all computer vision systems are abysmal crap and spend orders of magnitude more power to accomplish results many orders of magnitude less impressive than the human brain is capable of. The human brain uses something like 10-20 watts, how much CV/ML can you do with 10-20 watts? Not much at all. There is clearly a huge disconnect between our current approach to solving the problem technologically and how the evolutionary wetware solves the problem. That gap may be bridged sometime in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. I think the problem is being approached from the wrong direction, like trying to drive a screw with a hammer. Maybe we'll still get the job done, but I do not consider that a foregone conclusion.

mythz 7y ago

aka anti-vaxxer logic, anecdotes > real world stats. There are ~1.25 million car deaths per year (20-50 million injured or disabled), a lot of room for "progress" to save countless lives.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> There are ~1.25 million car deaths per year (20-50 million injured or disabled), a lot of room for "progress" to save countless lives. The vast majority of those occur in areas that will not see autonomous vehicles for a very long time, and have a lot of environmental challenges that make it much harder for an autonomous vehicle to outperform a human.
- mythz 7y ago
  and? it's not worth doing unless every life can be saved? The point is thousands of people die per day at the hands of human drivers. The sooner we can transition to autonomous vehicles, the sooner they'll start saving lives.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > and? it's not worth doing unless every life can be saved? I did not say or imply that. > The point is thousands of people die per day at the hands of human drivers. Yes, and thousands will die every day for quite a long time. You make it sound like autonomous vehicles are going to make a significant dent in that number. > The sooner we can transition to autonomous vehicles, the sooner they'll start saving lives. This is quite true. It will just be limited to lives in developed nations and a few select other major cities.
- throwaway66920 7y ago
  You’re stringing together a few questionable statements here. It’s true that the vast majority of cars won’t be autonomous for “a very long time” so the vast majority of deaths won’t be prevented. But what’s your point? That if the vast majority of the problem can’t be addressed quickly it’s not worth exploring? On a quick search, 30% of fatalities involve alcohol. 7% involve rain (the most common condition that causes crashes). Cars don’t actually need to be better than humans, or even as good as the average human. They just need to be better than the bottom 5th percentile, prefer safe driving, and not get distracted/drunk.

traderjane 7y ago

Do you not put your hands behind the car wheel with moral confidence, the confidence that you are okay with the sum of your action? Do you view the medical system differently?