4 ms·
My strategy was: minimise casualties to kids, people and then pets. If the choice is between equal damage to pedestrians or passengers then pedestrians take pre
by eckesicle 5y ago
My strategy was: minimise casualties to kids, people and then pets. If the choice is between equal damage to pedestrians or passengers then pedestrians take precedence. All else being equal don't intervene.
- betwixthewires 5y agoI get this point of view too, but my problem with it is that it is based on a series of prejudices (kids are more valuable than adults) and not some fundamental ethical principle. Maybe I just like things that in theory tidy up nicely and practicality is a better approach, but I think ethical decisions should be able to be fundamentally summarized in principle without relying on specifics of the situation unless they fundamentally change the scenario in some way.
- psyc 5y agoThis was my exact algorithm. Like GP said, it was jarring to read a bunch of conclusions that never entered my mind, and were a function of which examples they contrived. My reasoning about pedestrians is that they didn't sign up for self-driving, the people in the car did.