3 ms·

> By not doing so, it did the legally correct thing. The other driver will be blamed for this. But it may not have done the thing most likely to avoid an accide

> By not doing so, it did the legally correct thing. The other driver will be blamed for this. But it may not have done the thing most likely to avoid an accident. This is the real version of the trolley problem. It performed the only sane solution to the problem - stopping. You can't possibly predict what the most likely thing is to avoid an accident, because there is a multitude of factors beyond just 2 cars moving towards each other. Are there pedestrians present? Other parked cars? Storefronts with customers inside? How close to the sidewalk? Trees? Construction/Debris? Once we get AI working better than 99.9% of humans on roads with speed limits of up to 30 mph - we can expand it to faster roads and introduce advanced behaviors. But for now, stopping in uncertainty is the best available option.

tarsinge 4y ago
> It performed the only sane solution to the problem - stopping. You can't possibly predict what the most likely thing is to avoid an accident, because there is a multitude of factors beyond just 2 cars moving towards each other. Are there pedestrians present? Other parked cars? Storefronts with customers inside? How close to the sidewalk? Trees? Construction/Debris? Not only there are other factors, but you also need to predict what the other human driver will do. As stated in a sibling comment this is a huge part of safe driving. > Once we get AI working better than 99.9% of humans on roads But what you stated above require AGI, so what's the plan to get there? It's even more blurry than commercial fusion at that point.