3 ms·

Essentially: the situation only exists in the contrived world of ethicists, so the problem may be important for ethicists to solve but isn't important for AV en

by ponker 6y ago

Essentially: the situation only exists in the contrived world of ethicists, so the problem may be important for ethicists to solve but isn't important for AV engineers to solve. It's like asking a parent the question, "If both your kids were falling off a cliff at the exact same time and you could only save one of them, which one would you save." The parents says "well whichever one is closer to me." The ethicist says "No they are the exact same distance from you, with the one near your non-dominant arm exactly the amount closer to you to cancel out the advantage of your dominant arm." Well, Okay. It's a stressful question to be asked and to try to answer, but the answer in the actual real world is that the situation doesn't actually exist, and even if you were to replay the universe 5 quintillion times until the situation came up, the flesh and blood parent would panic in the moment and save neither one. So ethicists can debate the situation ad infinitum and entertain themselves doing so, but the situation only exists in the contrived world, so the answer doesn't matter.

luckylion 6y ago
You absolutely cannot imagine a situation where a car will most likely cause damage but the driver (be that a computer or a human) can influence where it hits? And if it can be influenced, why wouldn't you want the least amount of damage vs some random amount of damage? I'm not talking about Descartes and his all-powerful god that may fool him. "Which of your kids do you send to college if you don't have enough money to send both?" is a similar question, and that may be unthinkable and totally unrealistic for a SWE, but it's a pretty normal situation for lots of people.
- ponker 6y ago
  Of course I can imagine the situation, the same way I can imagine the situation with the two kids falling off the cliff. The question isn't any different from: "If the car is headed down a road and has to hit the Governor of Texas or the Governor of Louisiana which one should it hit?" Of course I absolutely can imagine this situation. But answering this question is just a Priority Last for autonomous vehicles.

by ponker 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

You absolutely cannot imagine a situation where a car will most likely cause damage but the driver (be that a computer or a human) can influence where it hits? And if it can be influenced, why wouldn't you want the least amount of damage vs some random amount of damage? I'm not talking about Descartes and his all-powerful god that may fool him. "Which of your kids do you send to college if you don't have enough money to send both?" is a similar question, and that may be unthinkable and totally unrealistic for a SWE, but it's a pretty normal situation for lots of people.

ponker 6y ago
Of course I can imagine the situation, the same way I can imagine the situation with the two kids falling off the cliff. The question isn't any different from: "If the car is headed down a road and has to hit the Governor of Texas or the Governor of Louisiana which one should it hit?" Of course I absolutely can imagine this situation. But answering this question is just a Priority Last for autonomous vehicles.