3 ms·

It's even more interesting to consider the ethical engines built into self driving. If a car has no choice but to hit a man or a woman, which one should it choo

It's even more interesting to consider the ethical engines built into self driving. If a car has no choice but to hit a man or a woman, which one should it choose? Adult or child? Two adults or one child? Should the car save a child pedestrian but risk the driver's life? This must be built into the driving self driving system or I don't see how it can be legally approved. Okay, so you've got a private company explicitly writing down the value of human life in a big list, top to bottom. Let's pretend we fast forward the several years to decades for the public to accept this new reality. Now we realise that different locations operate under different value systems. In Saudi Arabia, one man is worth three women. You best believe they will require the car to run down the woman. So each country/location is going to require an ethics update, and it's all going to have to be public. Imagine the heat Tesla is going to take by complying with Saudi rules and explicitly programming their cars to mow down women instead of men.

TecoAndJix 5y ago
I think that given that choice the car will choose "which is less likely to hurt my passenger" since the passenger is the (paying) client and not the pedestrian. Pedestrian infrastructure & defense will have to adapt to respond instead :).
- gambiting 5y ago
  I think this is the correct answer. It will be simpler and more straightforward from a legal perspective too, since it can be argued that any driver would do the same - they would try to protect themselves first, if for no other reason than the fact that humans simply don't have the ability to evaluate situations that quickly and play through a trolley problem in their head while the car is heading for a collision - you instinctively do whatever action feels right to protect yourself. So I think self driving systems will be coded with that imperative as well - protect occupants first and foremost, and they won't be calculating the "worth" of whatever or whoever they are about to hit. The extent of damage calculation will end at "there is one occupant in the driver seat, so the damage to them will be lower if I hit the obstacle with the passanger side of the car", but it won't actually know or care what the "obstacle" is.

TecoAndJix 5y ago

I think that given that choice the car will choose "which is less likely to hurt my passenger" since the passenger is the (paying) client and not the pedestrian. Pedestrian infrastructure & defense will have to adapt to respond instead :).

gambiting 5y ago
I think this is the correct answer. It will be simpler and more straightforward from a legal perspective too, since it can be argued that any driver would do the same - they would try to protect themselves first, if for no other reason than the fact that humans simply don't have the ability to evaluate situations that quickly and play through a trolley problem in their head while the car is heading for a collision - you instinctively do whatever action feels right to protect yourself. So I think self driving systems will be coded with that imperative as well - protect occupants first and foremost, and they won't be calculating the "worth" of whatever or whoever they are about to hit. The extent of damage calculation will end at "there is one occupant in the driver seat, so the damage to them will be lower if I hit the obstacle with the passanger side of the car", but it won't actually know or care what the "obstacle" is.