5 ms·

We're going to end up at the trolley problem again. "Should I do action X and kill 3 or do action Y and maybe kill 2?"

by ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago
Don't waste too much time on that. These are cars. They can just brake, it's good enough.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Let me know when we reach the point that autonomous cars can bend the laws of physics too, that would truly be a hoot!
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I think you deeply misunderstood me. I'm not saying that braking is magic and solves all problems. I'm saying that braking is morally sufficient in the real world. If hitting something is unavoidable, you can hit whatever is directly in front of you while braking as hard as possible. It's good enough.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      That's good enough for a human. Not for a machine which you can file a lawsuit over and say "it had a decision that it can actually make and chose to kill my son." See how that changes things? It's no longer "an accident."
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Eh. You can say the exact same thing about a human. Apply the reasonable person standard. Are they going to do any better? Probably not.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        No you can't. Humans don't have near the reaction time as these self driving cars do. They can process much more than we can, and they never get distracted, like we do. If a self driving car kills someone and it had the choice/option to do something else then we have a problem that needs dealt with. This isn't a human being or human error.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        Humans can panic and decide to swerve, and it only takes them a fraction of a second longer than it takes a self-driving car. Someone willing to argue that the car had a choice and made the wrong one could just as easily argue that the human had a choice and made the wrong one. You might personally think that oh, the machine is being rational and intentional, that's different from a human. But a lot of people will treat a human the exact same way. That split second panic is judged as if they had all the time in the world to consider the optimal choice. The legal system already has and handles this type of lawsuit.
- troupe 6y ago
  If a self driving car hits a school bus at high speed (despite braking), I'm pretty sure a lawyer will make a case that it could have avoided the school bus by driving up on the side walk which may or may not have had people on it. I get your point, but I think it is probably more correct for people who are making a split second decision rather than for a car where the decision has already been made in code and someone (or some company) has to take responsibility for why it was made that way.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You'll have lawyers willing to make a case against you even if you make a provably perfect choice. And the real issue is whatever got you into that situation, not the split second choice you make.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    Today’s AIs are happy to correctly identify which lane they should be on - counting how many people are on a given vehicle is so way out of scope that there is no point continuing.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      This is a strawman. If the option is available to avoid collision with another car and it brakes instead, colliding and killing someone else, that will be a lawsuit and that lawsuit will easily win.
LinuxBender 6y ago
This was the scenario in the depressing flashbacks in the movie iRobot. [1] A cop, truck driver and a passenger car with a little girl were pinned together under water in a lake. The NS4 (robot) passing by saw the accident and calculated the cop would have the highest probability for survival and rescued him and not the child, giving him PTSD. I am morbidly curious how much from that movie will play out with cars and other machinery as things evolve. I am also curious if we will learn any lessons ahead of time or if like city traffic lights, {n} number of people have to die before it becomes a financially viable discussion. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MFGx8d1zl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MFGx8d1zl0

We're going to end up at the trolley problem again. "Should I do action X and kill 3 or do action Y and maybe kill 2?"

Dylan16807 6y ago

Don't waste too much time on that. These are cars. They can just brake, it's good enough.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Let me know when we reach the point that autonomous cars can bend the laws of physics too, that would truly be a hoot!
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I think you deeply misunderstood me. I'm not saying that braking is magic and solves all problems. I'm saying that braking is morally sufficient in the real world. If hitting something is unavoidable, you can hit whatever is directly in front of you while braking as hard as possible. It's good enough.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That's good enough for a human. Not for a machine which you can file a lawsuit over and say "it had a decision that it can actually make and chose to kill my son." See how that changes things? It's no longer "an accident."
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Eh. You can say the exact same thing about a human. Apply the reasonable person standard. Are they going to do any better? Probably not.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        No you can't. Humans don't have near the reaction time as these self driving cars do. They can process much more than we can, and they never get distracted, like we do. If a self driving car kills someone and it had the choice/option to do something else then we have a problem that needs dealt with. This isn't a human being or human error.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        Humans can panic and decide to swerve, and it only takes them a fraction of a second longer than it takes a self-driving car. Someone willing to argue that the car had a choice and made the wrong one could just as easily argue that the human had a choice and made the wrong one. You might personally think that oh, the machine is being rational and intentional, that's different from a human. But a lot of people will treat a human the exact same way. That split second panic is judged as if they had all the time in the world to consider the optimal choice. The legal system already has and handles this type of lawsuit.
troupe 6y ago
If a self driving car hits a school bus at high speed (despite braking), I'm pretty sure a lawyer will make a case that it could have avoided the school bus by driving up on the side walk which may or may not have had people on it. I get your point, but I think it is probably more correct for people who are making a split second decision rather than for a car where the decision has already been made in code and someone (or some company) has to take responsibility for why it was made that way.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You'll have lawyers willing to make a case against you even if you make a provably perfect choice. And the real issue is whatever got you into that situation, not the split second choice you make.
- kaba0 6y ago
  Today’s AIs are happy to correctly identify which lane they should be on - counting how many people are on a given vehicle is so way out of scope that there is no point continuing.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    This is a strawman. If the option is available to avoid collision with another car and it brakes instead, colliding and killing someone else, that will be a lawsuit and that lawsuit will easily win.

LinuxBender 6y ago

This was the scenario in the depressing flashbacks in the movie iRobot. [1] A cop, truck driver and a passenger car with a little girl were pinned together under water in a lake. The NS4 (robot) passing by saw the accident and calculated the cop would have the highest probability for survival and rescued him and not the child, giving him PTSD. I am morbidly curious how much from that movie will play out with cars and other machinery as things evolve. I am also curious if we will learn any lessons ahead of time or if like city traffic lights, {n} number of people have to die before it becomes a financially viable discussion. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MFGx8d1zl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MFGx8d1zl0