7 ms·

Right, but the moral question is the same: Who's responsibility is it when an automated vehicle kills somebody- the operator or the manufacturer?

by fergie 7y ago

swiley 7y ago
Part of me is tempted to say the operator because people should demand documentation for how their cars work and shouldn’t just accept abstractions and hand wavy explanations. No one would do that if they could though. No manufacturer would share it if they were asked either since it could “leak IP” and so the reality is that won’t happen and the manufacturer should probably be responsible.
nkrisc 7y ago
The operator. People seem to have forgotten that when they get in their car they are driving heavy machinery and have a great deal of power and responsibility. They take it for granted. After all, the operator deployed the autonomous vehicle and should be responsible for what it does. If they aren't familiar with its capabilities and risks, they should not deploy such a vehicle unless they are willing to bear the responsibility for whatever it might do. Until such a time autonomous vehicles have free will and can be held accountable for their actions, the operator who deployed it assumes that accountability. This isn't even a new concept. If I let my dog loose in the park and it bites someone, I'm responsible for it. We don't hold dogs responsible for their actions, we hold the owner who "deployed" it responsible. I'll cede that things are a little murkier when manufacturers are pushing OTA updates to vehicles that change their behavior. But there's no reason the operator and the manufacturer can't share responsibility at a split decided in court.
- dwild 7y ago
  One day we won't be able to drive at all, it will be all self driving, and at that point, you'll no longer be able to do anything to avoid an accident. That would shift the default responsibility to the manufacturer and then split it with the owner if he bear a bit of responsibility too (like missing maintenance). You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars. Nothing force you to have a dog, nothing force you to let him loose either in a park. I hope one day it will no longer be a necessity and public transit will replace that need, but sadly, in most cities, it's pretty far from being able to.
  - foxyv 7y ago
    I don't think they are saying "Most people shouldn't drive cars" so much as "We need to make irresponsible driving much more of a big deal." It seems like people don't take their responsibilities as drivers very seriously while pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists are being killed and maimed as a result. All without much consequence to the drivers who create such an unsafe condition. Then when you ask motorists to drive responsibly they rage out at you trying to shift blame to someone else.
    - dwild 7y ago
      > I don't think they are saying "Most people shouldn't drive cars" so much as "We need to make irresponsible driving much more of a big deal." I don't see how you could interpret my comment as believing that was the subject. I'm not arguing about people not taking responsibility either. I'm arguing that one day, we will no longer even have enough control over a car to be able to be responsible for it. In the current state of "self-driving car" (which is closer to a fancy cruise control) I believe you are entirely responsible for it.
      - foxyv 7y ago
        I was referring to this: > You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    > You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars. Even if this is completely true, it does not absolve the driver of any responsibility, so I don't really see the point of bringing it up. > One day we won't be able to drive at all, it will be all self driving, and at that point, you'll no longer be able to do anything to avoid an accident. When this day comes, who the operator is may change, but there is still an operator somewhere deploying and managing these vehicles to hold accountable. If the taxi you're riding in is involved in a collision, you're not responsible.
    - 7y ago
- ouid 7y ago
  You clearly did not read any of the article. If the manufacturer installs a button that turns the car on but also turns off the parking brake, there can be no safe operation of that button. The manufacturer is clearly fully liable.
- theonemind 7y ago
  I don’t feel like this really makes for a sound argument. It reads like an appeal to personal responsibility. A dog doesn’t have, say, an implied level of safety from a manufacturer as something that doesn’t kill people. I don’t think the dog analogy holds well enough. I don’t want personal responsibility. I want to not get killed by an autonomous vehicle, period, and I say hold the party responsible whose responsibility more likely prevents my death. For me, that leans toward the manufacturer. If that bankrupts manufacturers because their devices kill people, fantastic, that just opens the market wide for autonomous vehicles that don’t kill people.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  > We don't hold dogs responsible for their actions, we hold the owner who "deployed" it responsible. Don't we though? At least in the past, if a dog bit someone, they were sometimes euthanized.
craftinator 7y ago
In this case it's automated in the sense that cruise control or garage door remotes are automation. From what I understand the car must have malfunctioned; ie. Starting in gear or having the the shift so loose that it vibrated into gear are both behaviors that it should not exhibit.
wyattpeak 7y ago
I don't think that sort of abstract question is useful. Forget autonomous vehicles for a second: if a driver runs someone over because they fell asleep they're at fault, if a driver runs someone over because their brakes failed the manufacturer's at fault.
jVinc 7y ago
Who's at fault if a bullet that automatically travels forwards after the owner activates it with a button on a gun winds up piercing the body of someone else and killing them? The person who activated the bullet or the manufacturer? This isn't about AI, it's a simple dumb case "guy presses button that makes metal move. Metal crushes pedestrian". There should be no doubt about who's wrong, and it's not a moral question. Naturally if the starting was a failure of the remote start system it's the manufacturer, but still not really a moral discussion, just plain old product failure.
- ouid 7y ago
  Guns are for killing people. Why do you think that guns are an acceptable example when discussing the safety requirements of consumer goods?

Right, but the moral question is the same: Who's responsibility is it when an automated vehicle kills somebody- the operator or the manufacturer?

by fergie 7y ago

Right, but the moral question is the same: Who's responsibility is it when an automated vehicle kills somebody- the operator or the manufacturer?

swiley 7y ago

Part of me is tempted to say the operator because people should demand documentation for how their cars work and shouldn’t just accept abstractions and hand wavy explanations. No one would do that if they could though. No manufacturer would share it if they were asked either since it could “leak IP” and so the reality is that won’t happen and the manufacturer should probably be responsible.

nkrisc 7y ago

The operator. People seem to have forgotten that when they get in their car they are driving heavy machinery and have a great deal of power and responsibility. They take it for granted. After all, the operator deployed the autonomous vehicle and should be responsible for what it does. If they aren't familiar with its capabilities and risks, they should not deploy such a vehicle unless they are willing to bear the responsibility for whatever it might do. Until such a time autonomous vehicles have free will and can be held accountable for their actions, the operator who deployed it assumes that accountability. This isn't even a new concept. If I let my dog loose in the park and it bites someone, I'm responsible for it. We don't hold dogs responsible for their actions, we hold the owner who "deployed" it responsible. I'll cede that things are a little murkier when manufacturers are pushing OTA updates to vehicles that change their behavior. But there's no reason the operator and the manufacturer can't share responsibility at a split decided in court.

dwild 7y ago
One day we won't be able to drive at all, it will be all self driving, and at that point, you'll no longer be able to do anything to avoid an accident. That would shift the default responsibility to the manufacturer and then split it with the owner if he bear a bit of responsibility too (like missing maintenance). You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars. Nothing force you to have a dog, nothing force you to let him loose either in a park. I hope one day it will no longer be a necessity and public transit will replace that need, but sadly, in most cities, it's pretty far from being able to.
- foxyv 7y ago
  I don't think they are saying "Most people shouldn't drive cars" so much as "We need to make irresponsible driving much more of a big deal." It seems like people don't take their responsibilities as drivers very seriously while pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists are being killed and maimed as a result. All without much consequence to the drivers who create such an unsafe condition. Then when you ask motorists to drive responsibly they rage out at you trying to shift blame to someone else.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > I don't think they are saying "Most people shouldn't drive cars" so much as "We need to make irresponsible driving much more of a big deal." I don't see how you could interpret my comment as believing that was the subject. I'm not arguing about people not taking responsibility either. I'm arguing that one day, we will no longer even have enough control over a car to be able to be responsible for it. In the current state of "self-driving car" (which is closer to a fancy cruise control) I believe you are entirely responsible for it.
    - foxyv 7y ago
      I was referring to this: > You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  > You forget that we live in a society where we need people to use cars. Even if this is completely true, it does not absolve the driver of any responsibility, so I don't really see the point of bringing it up. > One day we won't be able to drive at all, it will be all self driving, and at that point, you'll no longer be able to do anything to avoid an accident. When this day comes, who the operator is may change, but there is still an operator somewhere deploying and managing these vehicles to hold accountable. If the taxi you're riding in is involved in a collision, you're not responsible.
  - 7y ago
ouid 7y ago
You clearly did not read any of the article. If the manufacturer installs a button that turns the car on but also turns off the parking brake, there can be no safe operation of that button. The manufacturer is clearly fully liable.
theonemind 7y ago
I don’t feel like this really makes for a sound argument. It reads like an appeal to personal responsibility. A dog doesn’t have, say, an implied level of safety from a manufacturer as something that doesn’t kill people. I don’t think the dog analogy holds well enough. I don’t want personal responsibility. I want to not get killed by an autonomous vehicle, period, and I say hold the party responsible whose responsibility more likely prevents my death. For me, that leans toward the manufacturer. If that bankrupts manufacturers because their devices kill people, fantastic, that just opens the market wide for autonomous vehicles that don’t kill people.
loco5niner 7y ago
> We don't hold dogs responsible for their actions, we hold the owner who "deployed" it responsible. Don't we though? At least in the past, if a dog bit someone, they were sometimes euthanized.

craftinator 7y ago

In this case it's automated in the sense that cruise control or garage door remotes are automation. From what I understand the car must have malfunctioned; ie. Starting in gear or having the the shift so loose that it vibrated into gear are both behaviors that it should not exhibit.

wyattpeak 7y ago

I don't think that sort of abstract question is useful. Forget autonomous vehicles for a second: if a driver runs someone over because they fell asleep they're at fault, if a driver runs someone over because their brakes failed the manufacturer's at fault.

jVinc 7y ago

Who's at fault if a bullet that automatically travels forwards after the owner activates it with a button on a gun winds up piercing the body of someone else and killing them? The person who activated the bullet or the manufacturer? This isn't about AI, it's a simple dumb case "guy presses button that makes metal move. Metal crushes pedestrian". There should be no doubt about who's wrong, and it's not a moral question. Naturally if the starting was a failure of the remote start system it's the manufacturer, but still not really a moral discussion, just plain old product failure.

ouid 7y ago
Guns are for killing people. Why do you think that guns are an acceptable example when discussing the safety requirements of consumer goods?