4 ms·

Let's say your autodrive system replaces 100,000 driver-hours. Let's say those driver-hours would have resulted in 3 deaths of others (in vehicles or pedestria

Let's say your autodrive system replaces 100,000 driver-hours. Let's say those driver-hours would have resulted in 3 deaths of others (in vehicles or pedestrians) but your autodrive results in 1 different death (which wouldn't have occurred with the human drivers). Your stats are no comfort at all to the loved ones of your victim. It's like the Trolley Problem but the humans are unidentifiable.

michaelmrose 7y ago
The trolley problem challenges people who don't consider choosing not to act equally an active choice or intuitively feel that action is different than inaction. I would always pick the most valuable to me side and pull the switch or leave it be to bring about the better end result. Given the availability of self driving vehicles that reduce mortality choosing to drive oneself and kill more people is an unethical choice that will be as little comfort to the 3 victims as the one.
- DrScump 7y ago
  I would always pick the most valuable to me side Of course, when you know nothing about the would-be victims. But on a pure numbers theoretical basis, you autodrive veers out away from the three killers fleeing police by driving on the wrong side of the road in favor of running down two kids in a crosswalk. Real life is complicated.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Where did I say I would decide value purely by number of people? Why did you include the fact that they were killers fleeing police? Are, you supposing that I will somehow infer this in the 2 seconds I have to react or you just positing completele nonsense to muddy the waters with emotions? Pedanticaly one would virtually never choose to hit pedestrians instead of cars because pedestrians don't have crumple zones or air bags. The big question is should cars prioritize the owners health or the greater good and If the latter what is the greater good. I don't think people will turn on a product that might decide to kill them to save a school bus so it's simplified to minimizing chance of fatalities while protecting the owner absolutely even if this risks others.

michaelmrose 7y ago

The trolley problem challenges people who don't consider choosing not to act equally an active choice or intuitively feel that action is different than inaction. I would always pick the most valuable to me side and pull the switch or leave it be to bring about the better end result. Given the availability of self driving vehicles that reduce mortality choosing to drive oneself and kill more people is an unethical choice that will be as little comfort to the 3 victims as the one.

DrScump 7y ago
I would always pick the most valuable to me side Of course, when you know nothing about the would-be victims. But on a pure numbers theoretical basis, you autodrive veers out away from the three killers fleeing police by driving on the wrong side of the road in favor of running down two kids in a crosswalk. Real life is complicated.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Where did I say I would decide value purely by number of people? Why did you include the fact that they were killers fleeing police? Are, you supposing that I will somehow infer this in the 2 seconds I have to react or you just positing completele nonsense to muddy the waters with emotions? Pedanticaly one would virtually never choose to hit pedestrians instead of cars because pedestrians don't have crumple zones or air bags. The big question is should cars prioritize the owners health or the greater good and If the latter what is the greater good. I don't think people will turn on a product that might decide to kill them to save a school bus so it's simplified to minimizing chance of fatalities while protecting the owner absolutely even if this risks others.