3 ms·

Is it still designed to mow down pedestrians? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15344706/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrian

Is it still designed to mow down pedestrians? https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15344706/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrians/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15344706/self-driving-mer... Mercedes ethics: Save the people who can afford lawyers.

rootusrootus 4y ago
That's such a ridiculous problem to worry about. Humans don't try to solve the trolley problem, either, I don't know why we suddenly expect computers to be able to do it. The real answer is actually simple, and it's basically the same advice for human drivers: stop the car, however you can. Don't try to swerve, don't get clever, just dynamite the brakes and hope for the best. Or as they say on the race track "both pedals in!" Anything else is foolishness. I think magazines just like to talk about it because it makes people click.
- everyone 4y ago
  Your argument works both ways. Lets say a truck is driving on the wrong side of the road and is going to flatten the mercedes (not too uncommon as truck drivers seem to be crazy and will overtake each other). Lets say it's possible to swerve onto the footpath and squash some pedestrians in order to avoid the truck. A human driver wont be solving the trolley problem here and will probably just die. It sounds Mercedes goal is for the car to save the driver and kill the pedestrians in this situation.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Read what the Mercedes guy actually said, though. Swerving is bad, because it in no way guarantees a better result, and increases the risk substantially of making things worse. Any tire grip you use to swerve isn't being used to stop, and the best way to minimize damage to the car, and by extension risk to the occupant, is to get kinetic energy as low as possible and rely on the safety cage for the rest. The magazine writer frames it as "Mercedes is making a choice in the trolley problem, and that choice is the driver" as if that's actually a decision being made, instead of the entirely expected result of trying to slow the car enough that regular safety systems are likely to save the life of the driver. Mercedes is doing the opposite of trying to solve the trolley problem, they're declaring it pointless to try. It's much more plausible to get the car into the "driver is very unlikely to die" kinetic range than it is to get it down to "pedestrian is very unlikely to die." So, back to your hypothetical -- the Mercedes won't be swerving for the pedestrians, because that'll statistically increase the risk to the driver. The car may very well still get hit by that truck, but now it'll be on the driver side instead of the front crumple zone. And who knows what else happens after the car becomes ballistic because it collided with something.
    - Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
      I think that as car perception systems start to have understanding of the 3d scene (i.e. not just adaptive cruise longitudinal controllers) joint control of the brakes and steering will becoming standard for accident avoidance and will be a big step forwards. It probably is the case that braking ends up being the "more useful" degree of freedom (for one, braking latency is lower than swerving latency) but swerving out of the way of a car can be incredibly useful in certain cases.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Although it's pretty clear you don't care about an answer to your question - it's only designed to operate on highways.
- everyone 4y ago
  Their plan (as it was in 2016) is to eventually have full self driving everywhere. Presumably the fundamental decisions they make now will carry forward.
freeflight 4y ago
Usually no pedestrians running around on the autobahn, for which this system is intended for.
- everyone 4y ago
  Their plan (as it was in 2016) is to eventually have full self driving everywhere. Presumably the fundamental decisions they make now will carry forward.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rootusrootus 4y ago

That's such a ridiculous problem to worry about. Humans don't try to solve the trolley problem, either, I don't know why we suddenly expect computers to be able to do it. The real answer is actually simple, and it's basically the same advice for human drivers: stop the car, however you can. Don't try to swerve, don't get clever, just dynamite the brakes and hope for the best. Or as they say on the race track "both pedals in!" Anything else is foolishness. I think magazines just like to talk about it because it makes people click.

everyone 4y ago
Your argument works both ways. Lets say a truck is driving on the wrong side of the road and is going to flatten the mercedes (not too uncommon as truck drivers seem to be crazy and will overtake each other). Lets say it's possible to swerve onto the footpath and squash some pedestrians in order to avoid the truck. A human driver wont be solving the trolley problem here and will probably just die. It sounds Mercedes goal is for the car to save the driver and kill the pedestrians in this situation.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Read what the Mercedes guy actually said, though. Swerving is bad, because it in no way guarantees a better result, and increases the risk substantially of making things worse. Any tire grip you use to swerve isn't being used to stop, and the best way to minimize damage to the car, and by extension risk to the occupant, is to get kinetic energy as low as possible and rely on the safety cage for the rest. The magazine writer frames it as "Mercedes is making a choice in the trolley problem, and that choice is the driver" as if that's actually a decision being made, instead of the entirely expected result of trying to slow the car enough that regular safety systems are likely to save the life of the driver. Mercedes is doing the opposite of trying to solve the trolley problem, they're declaring it pointless to try. It's much more plausible to get the car into the "driver is very unlikely to die" kinetic range than it is to get it down to "pedestrian is very unlikely to die." So, back to your hypothetical -- the Mercedes won't be swerving for the pedestrians, because that'll statistically increase the risk to the driver. The car may very well still get hit by that truck, but now it'll be on the driver side instead of the front crumple zone. And who knows what else happens after the car becomes ballistic because it collided with something.
  - Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
    I think that as car perception systems start to have understanding of the 3d scene (i.e. not just adaptive cruise longitudinal controllers) joint control of the brakes and steering will becoming standard for accident avoidance and will be a big step forwards. It probably is the case that braking ends up being the "more useful" degree of freedom (for one, braking latency is lower than swerving latency) but swerving out of the way of a car can be incredibly useful in certain cases.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

Although it's pretty clear you don't care about an answer to your question - it's only designed to operate on highways.

everyone 4y ago
Their plan (as it was in 2016) is to eventually have full self driving everywhere. Presumably the fundamental decisions they make now will carry forward.

freeflight 4y ago

Usually no pedestrians running around on the autobahn, for which this system is intended for.

everyone 4y ago
Their plan (as it was in 2016) is to eventually have full self driving everywhere. Presumably the fundamental decisions they make now will carry forward.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]