10 ms·

This is a hypothetical that has spawned all sorts of discussions about the trolley problem, but it's not really going to exist in reality. These cars will never

This is a hypothetical that has spawned all sorts of discussions about the trolley problem, but it's not really going to exist in reality. These cars will never swerve to hit one target over another.

michaelmrose 5y ago
It's going to have to pick between less bad situations because humans in fact have to do so. Example running over an animal to avoid an accident, getting rear ended to avoid hitting a pedestrian, taking a calculated risk of being hit by oncoming traffic on a 2 lane situation when coming across a stalled car without optimal view on the road ahead. It's going to make a decision between different risk factors and between different known costs. Imagine on a 2 lane there is a pedestrian and oncoming traffic and insufficient time to stop. Do you kill the pedestrian or risk ending up in the ditch. If you are going 60 and ending up in the ditch would likely be fatal is it ok to just smear the pedestrian? What if you can slow to 20 and then ditch? These situations won't hopefully be prevalent because a massive portion of our current issues are down to inattention or stupidity and we believe ai will eventually be much better at avoiding such problems but they are still important and interesting.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > It's going to have to pick between less bad situations because humans in fact have to do so. Yeah but not trolley problem style. "Don't swerve" is a valid strategy for a car. > Example running over an animal to avoid an accident Depends on the kind of accident you have in mind, so I can't give real feedback here. > getting rear ended to avoid hitting a pedestrian Always brake to avoid hitting a pedestrian. You don't choose whether to get rear-ended and it won't be your fault either. > taking a calculated risk of being hit by oncoming traffic on a 2 lane situation when coming across a stalled car without optimal view on the road ahead. When one of the choices is "sit there and wait longer", that's definitely not a trolley problem. It either thinks going forward is sufficiently safe or it doesn't. It can wait all day for someone to intervene. > Imagine on a 2 lane there is a pedestrian and oncoming traffic and insufficient time to stop. Do you kill the pedestrian or risk ending up in the ditch. If it's programmed not to swerve, it will hit the pedestrian, which is an acceptable outcome of an unacceptable situation. > If you are going 60 and ending up in the ditch would likely be fatal is it ok to just smear the pedestrian? It's sufficiently ok when the only alternative is so reckless. Getting into that situation is the not-ok part. > What if you can slow to 20 and then ditch? If you can slow to 20 then hit the pedestrian at 20.
  - 988747 5y ago
    > > Example running over an animal to avoid an accident > Depends on the kind of accident you have in mind, so I can't give real feedback here. Typical scenario here is a dog appearing on your lane in a high-traffic, multi-lane road. You don't swerve, you don't even break too hard, because hitting the dog is much better outcome than hitting another car, or landing in a ditch, or getting rear ended.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    In many situations hitting the ditch at 20 is unlikely to kill you but hitting the pedestrian will still probably kill them.
- tbp105 5y ago
  Humans have this problem because they get distracted and have slow reaction times. Emergency breaking can typically stop a car within about 100 yards even from freeway speeds. But a distracted human might travel more than that before they even realize they should be trying to stop. Humans are also pretty bad at adjusting to conditions, so if weather makes the road slick (wet or icy) or they have limited visibility, they don't often slow down enough to compensate. Autonomous cars have none of these problems, so aren't likely to ever run in to a "can't stop in time" situation. I can't actually think of any situation where, in the event of a likely collision, the best solution isn't to just try to stop. Even if, for some reason, you can't stop quickly enough to avoid the collision, any reduction in speed will result in a reduction in the severity of collision.
  - astrange 5y ago
    In a gas car someone could theoretically cut the brakes, but in an electric car you can stop accelerating (or activate regeneration) and it should still slow down. It might have to do something clever for hydroplaning or tire blowouts but that will need to be a predictable thing, so people know how to act around it.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Look at the ai that hit the person with the bike crossing the road
- x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
  It's amazing how you think computers algorithms should solve these, when _people_ aren't expected to.

This is a hypothetical that has spawned all sorts of discussions about the trolley problem, but it's not really going to exist in reality. These cars will never swerve to hit one target over another.

michaelmrose 5y ago

It's going to have to pick between less bad situations because humans in fact have to do so. Example running over an animal to avoid an accident, getting rear ended to avoid hitting a pedestrian, taking a calculated risk of being hit by oncoming traffic on a 2 lane situation when coming across a stalled car without optimal view on the road ahead. It's going to make a decision between different risk factors and between different known costs. Imagine on a 2 lane there is a pedestrian and oncoming traffic and insufficient time to stop. Do you kill the pedestrian or risk ending up in the ditch. If you are going 60 and ending up in the ditch would likely be fatal is it ok to just smear the pedestrian? What if you can slow to 20 and then ditch? These situations won't hopefully be prevalent because a massive portion of our current issues are down to inattention or stupidity and we believe ai will eventually be much better at avoiding such problems but they are still important and interesting.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> It's going to have to pick between less bad situations because humans in fact have to do so. Yeah but not trolley problem style. "Don't swerve" is a valid strategy for a car. > Example running over an animal to avoid an accident Depends on the kind of accident you have in mind, so I can't give real feedback here. > getting rear ended to avoid hitting a pedestrian Always brake to avoid hitting a pedestrian. You don't choose whether to get rear-ended and it won't be your fault either. > taking a calculated risk of being hit by oncoming traffic on a 2 lane situation when coming across a stalled car without optimal view on the road ahead. When one of the choices is "sit there and wait longer", that's definitely not a trolley problem. It either thinks going forward is sufficiently safe or it doesn't. It can wait all day for someone to intervene. > Imagine on a 2 lane there is a pedestrian and oncoming traffic and insufficient time to stop. Do you kill the pedestrian or risk ending up in the ditch. If it's programmed not to swerve, it will hit the pedestrian, which is an acceptable outcome of an unacceptable situation. > If you are going 60 and ending up in the ditch would likely be fatal is it ok to just smear the pedestrian? It's sufficiently ok when the only alternative is so reckless. Getting into that situation is the not-ok part. > What if you can slow to 20 and then ditch? If you can slow to 20 then hit the pedestrian at 20.
- 988747 5y ago
  > > Example running over an animal to avoid an accident > Depends on the kind of accident you have in mind, so I can't give real feedback here. Typical scenario here is a dog appearing on your lane in a high-traffic, multi-lane road. You don't swerve, you don't even break too hard, because hitting the dog is much better outcome than hitting another car, or landing in a ditch, or getting rear ended.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  In many situations hitting the ditch at 20 is unlikely to kill you but hitting the pedestrian will still probably kill them.
tbp105 5y ago
Humans have this problem because they get distracted and have slow reaction times. Emergency breaking can typically stop a car within about 100 yards even from freeway speeds. But a distracted human might travel more than that before they even realize they should be trying to stop. Humans are also pretty bad at adjusting to conditions, so if weather makes the road slick (wet or icy) or they have limited visibility, they don't often slow down enough to compensate. Autonomous cars have none of these problems, so aren't likely to ever run in to a "can't stop in time" situation. I can't actually think of any situation where, in the event of a likely collision, the best solution isn't to just try to stop. Even if, for some reason, you can't stop quickly enough to avoid the collision, any reduction in speed will result in a reduction in the severity of collision.
- astrange 5y ago
  In a gas car someone could theoretically cut the brakes, but in an electric car you can stop accelerating (or activate regeneration) and it should still slow down. It might have to do something clever for hydroplaning or tire blowouts but that will need to be a predictable thing, so people know how to act around it.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Look at the ai that hit the person with the bike crossing the road
x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
It's amazing how you think computers algorithms should solve these, when _people_ aren't expected to.