5 ms·

This is quite a useless article IMO. No-one drives selflessly and suicidaly altruistic anyway. The article's author is shaming and criticizing Mercedes for maki

This is quite a useless article IMO. No-one drives selflessly and suicidaly altruistic anyway. The article's author is shaming and criticizing Mercedes for making this design decision, while ignoring all the practical aspects of the technology. These sorts of decisions will have to be made by self-driving cars at some point, and its not like self-driving cars will be murderous and seeking out people to splat. I'm sure that if a life has to be taken and a machine is going to be judge, jury, and executioner - most people would generally prefer that the machine spare them. Considering that this tech is on its way in the near future regardless if ethical philosophers are ready or not, and barring some legislation forcing a set of priorities for the machine to take into account, I would prefer that the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on prioritize my life over someone else's. It would be a sales and PR embarrassment/nightmare to market that the car might sacrifice its occupants if the car deems that it's for 'the greater good'.

homonculus1 7y ago
>I would prefer that the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on prioritize my life over someone else's. The risks of travel should fall on the traveler, externalizing them onto bystanders is wrong and invoking the cost of the machine is monstrous.
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  Considering the cost of the machine is inevitable, but that cost calculus will ultimately include a lot more variables than the MSRP. Ultimately these machines need to be insured. The fact that the decisions can and will need to be pre-programmed will ultimately result in the market for insurance dictating the least cost to the insurer has ultimate say over the programming. What we have in the interim is just a chicken and an egg problem while insurers gather enough data to determine the real, "costs" including lawsuits. Google SawStop.
- yazan94 7y ago
  No need for overly simplistic and naive rhetoric - people won't spend that kind of money on a car that won't prioritize the occupants. In the end, car companies are in the business of making money. It would be a disservice to all to forget that

homonculus1 7y ago

>I would prefer that the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on prioritize my life over someone else's. The risks of travel should fall on the traveler, externalizing them onto bystanders is wrong and invoking the cost of the machine is monstrous.

Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
Considering the cost of the machine is inevitable, but that cost calculus will ultimately include a lot more variables than the MSRP. Ultimately these machines need to be insured. The fact that the decisions can and will need to be pre-programmed will ultimately result in the market for insurance dictating the least cost to the insurer has ultimate say over the programming. What we have in the interim is just a chicken and an egg problem while insurers gather enough data to determine the real, "costs" including lawsuits. Google SawStop.
yazan94 7y ago
No need for overly simplistic and naive rhetoric - people won't spend that kind of money on a car that won't prioritize the occupants. In the end, car companies are in the business of making money. It would be a disservice to all to forget that