4 ms·

The trolley problem is so overblown. Just brake. Just braking is a simple and really effective solution to the vast, vast majority of problems. Instead of tryin

by jdashg 7y ago

The trolley problem is so overblown. Just brake. Just braking is a simple and really effective solution to the vast, vast majority of problems. Instead of trying to program complex and fraught harm minimization systems, focus on braking distance, collision safety, and enforcing a safety envelope for self-driving: Never go faster than your brakes, even if humans often do.

mindslight 7y ago
The problem with your comment is that it is not long enough to put any ads on it.
xmprt 7y ago
The trolley problem always struck me as a super contrived problem when applied to self-driving vehicles. In what scenario are your sensors and computing devices functional to the point that you can decide who you want to save but also break down in such a way that you weren't able to prevent it.
braythwayt 7y ago
The trolley problem as usually posed is contrived, but the "swerve instead of braking" problem happens more frequently than many people think. Consider driving along an undivided highway. An approaching car veers into your lane. You definitely want to swerve, rather than brake and risk being hit head-on. Of course, we can contrive a situation on top of that, like a group ride of cyclists to your right, so swerving will take them out... But that is besides the point. I am just saying that there are cases where braking is not the safest thing for the occupants of the car.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  But that is exactly the trolley problem! Brake and 1 occupant is at risk. Swerve and the cyclists at the side of the road are at risk. So the decision to swerve is the trolley problem either way. You know the cyclists are there, and swerve because the occupant is valued more. Or the car doesn't know if cyclists are there, swerve and these possible/virtual cyclists are sacrificed for the occupant of the vehicle.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    I was comparing swerve instead of braking to the trolley problem as usually contrived, i.e. you can direct the trolley to one of two tracks. The person I was replying to said this is nonsense, as in a car you can just brake and nobody gets killed. I explained that there is a real-world situation where braking is not an escape, it is—as you say—equivalent to directing the trolley to the line where there is one victim. We agree that the trolley problem in the abstract is about making a choice as to who is harmed. I was just pointing out that car brakes do not invalidate the concern.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Of course, sorry. I've predicted for years now that the first day of automated driving will have to solve the trolley car problem. I can only see one way out: we make a rule e.g. automated cars cannot leave the roadway.
      - gricardo99 7y ago
        I think you’re specifying the solution you prefer to the trolley car problem, rather than finding a way out of the problem. I think that’s the point. Decisions need to be made about how to deal with these ethical dilemmas. It shouldn’t be left up to individual companies or software implementations.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Nobody's solved the trolley car problem to everyone's satisfaction in a century. Not gonna happen tomorrow. Agreed it shouldn't be left to the companies - that's why the 'make a rule' idea. Else the companies are in an escalating war of ad-hoc behaviors to preserve their customer vs all others.
def8cefe 7y ago
>Never go faster than your brakes. Braking is not instantaneous at any speed. You will still continue to travel at least some distance while you decelerate. Your comment makes sense if you are trying to prevent a collision with another moving vehicle in front of you, you can make sure you have enough braking distance to come to a complete stop if the other car does as well. What if you're doing 50km/h with a pedestrian on the sidewalk 10 metres ahead of you to your right? If the pedestrian steps or falls out suddenly into the road you won't be able to avoid hitting them without swerving, most likely into the adjacent lane. That lane might have another car or a gaggle of nuns tied up by an ethics professor in it already that you will have to contact in avoiding the pedestrian. If you maintain a safe braking distance between your vehicle and all objects, even ones you don't expect to enter your path, you would be unable to travel above 0km/h in most situations.

by jdashg 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

The problem with your comment is that it is not long enough to put any ads on it.

xmprt 7y ago

The trolley problem always struck me as a super contrived problem when applied to self-driving vehicles. In what scenario are your sensors and computing devices functional to the point that you can decide who you want to save but also break down in such a way that you weren't able to prevent it.

braythwayt 7y ago

The trolley problem as usually posed is contrived, but the "swerve instead of braking" problem happens more frequently than many people think. Consider driving along an undivided highway. An approaching car veers into your lane. You definitely want to swerve, rather than brake and risk being hit head-on. Of course, we can contrive a situation on top of that, like a group ride of cyclists to your right, so swerving will take them out... But that is besides the point. I am just saying that there are cases where braking is not the safest thing for the occupants of the car.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
But that is exactly the trolley problem! Brake and 1 occupant is at risk. Swerve and the cyclists at the side of the road are at risk. So the decision to swerve is the trolley problem either way. You know the cyclists are there, and swerve because the occupant is valued more. Or the car doesn't know if cyclists are there, swerve and these possible/virtual cyclists are sacrificed for the occupant of the vehicle.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  I was comparing swerve instead of braking to the trolley problem as usually contrived, i.e. you can direct the trolley to one of two tracks. The person I was replying to said this is nonsense, as in a car you can just brake and nobody gets killed. I explained that there is a real-world situation where braking is not an escape, it is—as you say—equivalent to directing the trolley to the line where there is one victim. We agree that the trolley problem in the abstract is about making a choice as to who is harmed. I was just pointing out that car brakes do not invalidate the concern.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Of course, sorry. I've predicted for years now that the first day of automated driving will have to solve the trolley car problem. I can only see one way out: we make a rule e.g. automated cars cannot leave the roadway.
    - gricardo99 7y ago
      I think you’re specifying the solution you prefer to the trolley car problem, rather than finding a way out of the problem. I think that’s the point. Decisions need to be made about how to deal with these ethical dilemmas. It shouldn’t be left up to individual companies or software implementations.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Nobody's solved the trolley car problem to everyone's satisfaction in a century. Not gonna happen tomorrow. Agreed it shouldn't be left to the companies - that's why the 'make a rule' idea. Else the companies are in an escalating war of ad-hoc behaviors to preserve their customer vs all others.

def8cefe 7y ago

>Never go faster than your brakes. Braking is not instantaneous at any speed. You will still continue to travel at least some distance while you decelerate. Your comment makes sense if you are trying to prevent a collision with another moving vehicle in front of you, you can make sure you have enough braking distance to come to a complete stop if the other car does as well. What if you're doing 50km/h with a pedestrian on the sidewalk 10 metres ahead of you to your right? If the pedestrian steps or falls out suddenly into the road you won't be able to avoid hitting them without swerving, most likely into the adjacent lane. That lane might have another car or a gaggle of nuns tied up by an ethics professor in it already that you will have to contact in avoiding the pedestrian. If you maintain a safe braking distance between your vehicle and all objects, even ones you don't expect to enter your path, you would be unable to travel above 0km/h in most situations.