5 ms·

People may be appalled by the prior decision to save the driver over others. I think the onus is, at least in part, on others to prove that a human driver would

People may be appalled by the prior decision to save the driver over others. I think the onus is, at least in part, on others to prove that a human driver wouldnt do the same thing. If something is coming at me, I'm likely to swerve (by quick reaction), even if it means hitting someone else.

moralestapia 7y ago
Huh? What's the point of deploying AI with the same shortcomings as humans?
- maerF0x0 7y ago
  The AI ought to be finding itself in the situation far less frequently than humans do. Still a net reduction in issues.
jdashg 7y ago
We have laws that say it's not ok to hit pedestrians to avoid obstacles, which is a strong prior that society doesn't want, and enforces against, a greedy self-trolley solution. Expect legislation prohibiting this behavior.
- Arnt 7y ago
  At the very least it'll tilt the balance further against car drivers, in favour of people who don't want traffic where they live. https://www.bussgeldkatalog-mpu.de/bussgeld-wAssets/img/verkehrszeichen/durchfahrt-verboten/weblication/wThumbnails/verkehrszeichen-250-durchfahrt-verboten-3570d73ddff018agf3d7b07fe1a9d902.jpg https://www.bussgeldkatalog-mpu.de/bussgeld-wAssets/img/verk...
guenthert 7y ago
I'm not sure whether that is really the case. If something is coming at you, the choices are usually to swerve or to brake (even if that turns out to be ineffective in avoiding the collision). People might swerve, if they think the newly chosen path is clear. They just might be mistaken in that, often due to tunnel vision and the unfortunate focus on the immediate and obvious danger, rather on a path avoiding disaster. These example strive me as fairly contrived however. In traffic there simply is no time to make complex moral decisions. In the fraction of a second between realizing that an accident is imminent and impact, people just react (more or less skillfully and fortuitous, depending on many circumstances, including training and sheer luck). Perhaps that's actually the way out for developers of such autonomous vehicles: just focus on what's ahead and if there's danger and braking won't be effective, swerve. If then someone is hit, it is an accident (due to incomplete information), rather than a (planned) sacrifice. Ignorance is a bliss.
braythwayt 7y ago
You're saying that this is no worse than the status quo. Quite possibly true. But moving forward into a world where every vehicle is autonomous, we definitely want to do better than the status quo. Debates like this shape our definition of "better."
Gibbon1 7y ago
Airbags in the A pillar prioritize the safety of the driver while creating a blind spot that makes it difficult to spot pedestrians.

moralestapia 7y ago

Huh? What's the point of deploying AI with the same shortcomings as humans?

maerF0x0 7y ago
The AI ought to be finding itself in the situation far less frequently than humans do. Still a net reduction in issues.

jdashg 7y ago

We have laws that say it's not ok to hit pedestrians to avoid obstacles, which is a strong prior that society doesn't want, and enforces against, a greedy self-trolley solution. Expect legislation prohibiting this behavior.

Arnt 7y ago
At the very least it'll tilt the balance further against car drivers, in favour of people who don't want traffic where they live. https://www.bussgeldkatalog-mpu.de/bussgeld-wAssets/img/verkehrszeichen/durchfahrt-verboten/weblication/wThumbnails/verkehrszeichen-250-durchfahrt-verboten-3570d73ddff018agf3d7b07fe1a9d902.jpg https://www.bussgeldkatalog-mpu.de/bussgeld-wAssets/img/verk...

guenthert 7y ago

I'm not sure whether that is really the case. If something is coming at you, the choices are usually to swerve or to brake (even if that turns out to be ineffective in avoiding the collision). People might swerve, if they think the newly chosen path is clear. They just might be mistaken in that, often due to tunnel vision and the unfortunate focus on the immediate and obvious danger, rather on a path avoiding disaster. These example strive me as fairly contrived however. In traffic there simply is no time to make complex moral decisions. In the fraction of a second between realizing that an accident is imminent and impact, people just react (more or less skillfully and fortuitous, depending on many circumstances, including training and sheer luck). Perhaps that's actually the way out for developers of such autonomous vehicles: just focus on what's ahead and if there's danger and braking won't be effective, swerve. If then someone is hit, it is an accident (due to incomplete information), rather than a (planned) sacrifice. Ignorance is a bliss.

braythwayt 7y ago

You're saying that this is no worse than the status quo. Quite possibly true. But moving forward into a world where every vehicle is autonomous, we definitely want to do better than the status quo. Debates like this shape our definition of "better."

Gibbon1 7y ago

Airbags in the A pillar prioritize the safety of the driver while creating a blind spot that makes it difficult to spot pedestrians.