3 ms·

My preference was always to save the pedestrians. My decision tree is that the passenger made a choice to be in the device that may cause harm. Pedestrians did

My preference was always to save the pedestrians. My decision tree is that the passenger made a choice to be in the device that may cause harm. Pedestrians did not. Therefore, all things being equal, save people who did not knowingly participate over people who did.

moralestapia 5y ago
Same here, my moral brother. :D
- underlines 5y ago
  This is also heavily affected by how a country's traffic laws work. In my country we teach a hierarchy of lower to higher vunerability, with pedestrians at the most vulnerable position in this hierarchy. The whole traffic law is centered around protecting and favoring those with higher vunerability. A driver is still wrong, even when a pedestrian is Jay walking illegally and gets killed.
dfee 5y ago
Very fair point. My perspective was, “protect what has entrusted itself to you - the passengers”. But, that’s actually pretty reckless and anti-societal. My wife made the point, “I just don’t want to play”, which made me kinda agree. Maybe we shouldn’t be designing these products before we can figure out how to eliminate those situations through other means - like boring tunnels for cars to maneuver in, away from peds.
- eternityforest 5y ago
  If we don't like the idea of choosing who to kill, then shouldn't we be concerned about human drivers having to make the same choices, and doing more to stop those accidents?
ssharp 5y ago
I took the test with this logic but I think there is a wrinkle I overlooked -- pedestrians are able to control their decisions while the passengers can't control their decision besides the decision to enter the self-driving vehicle. For example, pedestrians are able to look both ways and ensure it's safe to cross. With that in mind, I don't think it makes sense for the car to alter course and cross the line in order to kill less people since the people who are on the other side already made a safe decision to cross while the people straight ahead did not.

moralestapia 5y ago

Same here, my moral brother. :D

underlines 5y ago
This is also heavily affected by how a country's traffic laws work. In my country we teach a hierarchy of lower to higher vunerability, with pedestrians at the most vulnerable position in this hierarchy. The whole traffic law is centered around protecting and favoring those with higher vunerability. A driver is still wrong, even when a pedestrian is Jay walking illegally and gets killed.

dfee 5y ago

Very fair point. My perspective was, “protect what has entrusted itself to you - the passengers”. But, that’s actually pretty reckless and anti-societal. My wife made the point, “I just don’t want to play”, which made me kinda agree. Maybe we shouldn’t be designing these products before we can figure out how to eliminate those situations through other means - like boring tunnels for cars to maneuver in, away from peds.

eternityforest 5y ago
If we don't like the idea of choosing who to kill, then shouldn't we be concerned about human drivers having to make the same choices, and doing more to stop those accidents?

ssharp 5y ago

I took the test with this logic but I think there is a wrinkle I overlooked -- pedestrians are able to control their decisions while the passengers can't control their decision besides the decision to enter the self-driving vehicle. For example, pedestrians are able to look both ways and ensure it's safe to cross. With that in mind, I don't think it makes sense for the car to alter course and cross the line in order to kill less people since the people who are on the other side already made a safe decision to cross while the people straight ahead did not.