3 ms·

That's not a real problem. The correct answer is to stop the car, in almost any realistic scenario. It's also not a big deal, because human drivers are really b

That's not a real problem. The correct answer is to stop the car, in almost any realistic scenario. It's also not a big deal, because human drivers are really bad at surprise children jumping into the middle of roads near the edge of cliffs too.

arein2 7y ago
Or the user could choose personality of the AI selfish vs altruistic to match his
- pqdfdsaff 7y ago
  maybe this is a joke, but really, no. Car AIs don't encounter trolley problems, because the trolley in the trolley problem is ALREADY out of control and unable to stop (besides the turning lever). If the Car AI is in a situation where it might lose control of the car, it should decide that it isn't safe to drive. Asking a car to be altruistic means the car is making value judgements about what's better to hit, which means there's a mode where the car decides to hit something. The car should not be allowed to decide to hit something, or even swerve wildly out of the way. It should drive at a slow enough speed that it can safely stop for reasonably encountered circumstances. And if someone teleports in front of your car, it should just try (and fail) to stop in time.
  - arein2 7y ago
    It depends. If someone runs a red light and swerving (assuming it knows it's safe) will avoid an accident I don't see why it shouldn't do it. But I agree this is an edge case and is not an important feature. There are more important things to focus on. The idea is to add an element of randomness to the decision making. I don't mean to pick random decisions, but when there are decisions that weight approximately the same it should pick the decision based on personality/mood. This would enable the algorithm to adapt and be flexible, instead of a deterministic algorithm that could cause chain unoptimal behavior.
    - arein2 7y ago
      By applying deterministic rules to a system an edge case would affect all users. By introducing variance and enabling the system to adapt, the edge cases would be, in a way, self correcting and more resilient.

arein2 7y ago

Or the user could choose personality of the AI selfish vs altruistic to match his

pqdfdsaff 7y ago
maybe this is a joke, but really, no. Car AIs don't encounter trolley problems, because the trolley in the trolley problem is ALREADY out of control and unable to stop (besides the turning lever). If the Car AI is in a situation where it might lose control of the car, it should decide that it isn't safe to drive. Asking a car to be altruistic means the car is making value judgements about what's better to hit, which means there's a mode where the car decides to hit something. The car should not be allowed to decide to hit something, or even swerve wildly out of the way. It should drive at a slow enough speed that it can safely stop for reasonably encountered circumstances. And if someone teleports in front of your car, it should just try (and fail) to stop in time.
- arein2 7y ago
  It depends. If someone runs a red light and swerving (assuming it knows it's safe) will avoid an accident I don't see why it shouldn't do it. But I agree this is an edge case and is not an important feature. There are more important things to focus on. The idea is to add an element of randomness to the decision making. I don't mean to pick random decisions, but when there are decisions that weight approximately the same it should pick the decision based on personality/mood. This would enable the algorithm to adapt and be flexible, instead of a deterministic algorithm that could cause chain unoptimal behavior.
  - arein2 7y ago
    By applying deterministic rules to a system an edge case would affect all users. By introducing variance and enabling the system to adapt, the edge cases would be, in a way, self correcting and more resilient.