5 ms·

The basic thought experiment is this: "If the robot car that hit me on my bike did so with provably the best intentions, should I still be angry?" At least wit

The basic thought experiment is this: "If the robot car that hit me on my bike did so with provably the best intentions, should I still be angry?" At least with a person driving, I can criticize their thought patterns, their reactions, their choices--I can laud them for dodging the stroller, or curse them for drinking and swerving into me (provided I can still talk). With a machine, though, we lose any chance at morality. They act exactly as programmed, and we all know how reliable programs are. If, following such an accident, I were to be in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, I would want the entire stack trace that led up to my collision. I would want the unabridged source code and issue trackers. I would want the core dump. I would want every scrap of information that went into the vehicle's decision to zig instead of zagging. I'm not sure that we want to hand over so much blanket responsibility to black-boxes designed by committee and implemented by antisocial 20-something engineers working weird hours. EDIT: Reflecting on this a little has suggested, perhaps, that we should have one standard algorithm and package for doing this sort of thing, open-source and in the public domain. There shouldn't even be a question about allowing closed-source autonomous vehicles on the road.

eurleif 13y ago
You would want all that information for the purpose of proving the program was at fault, right? What if the company behind the software was automatically liable for all accidents? Wouldn't that answer that?
- angersock 13y ago
  I would want all that information as closure, since I wouldn't be able to walk again. Whether or not the program is functioning correctly, I want to know exactly how things went down--something that is finally possible if you automate driving. Holding the companies responsible is nice (and might as well be done), but until all cars are autonomous (and even then) there will be many cases where the initial conditions of an accident preclude anything but a harmful outcome. For example, a robot car doing the right thing could be boxed in by two malicious drivers and "forced" into hurting a bystander.
jotux 13y ago
>implemented by antisocial 20-something engineers working weird hours. I feel like this is a myth we should actively work to squash. The vast majority of engineers and coders are 30/40-somethings with normal social lives, families, and working 9-5 weekdays.
- angersock 13y ago
  Quite true--and yet, look at the companies making the news. Hell, in many cases your motion-planning is being done by people who were graduate students, and even then the stereotype...well, it fits, you know?
- FatalError 13y ago
  And even if they were, surely this is only a bad thing in that it might indicate that some potentially good engineers had been excluded from the workforce. Is reverse-bigotry really so far gone that some people genuinely think that being an "antisocial 20-something" makes a person a worse engineer?
  - dagw 13y ago
    One of the key factors in becoming a good engineer is experience. a 20-something, antisocial or otherwise, basically by definition is lacking in this experience. Sure they may be really really smart and write incredibly clever code, but it takes more than that to be a good engineer.
MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
I think another way to look at it is: if all cars were on auto-pilot, you would have a much smaller chance of being injured or killed on your bicycle. So if it happens a hundred thousand times more with human drivers, but there's a person you can point your finger at afterwards, does that make anyone more comfortable?
thenmar 13y ago
I'm having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make. Is it that if a computer bug causes an accident, the victim wouldn't have an individual to fantasize about getting revenge on? That the company that developed the software wouldn't be held accountable? That humans have "morals" that make them avoid accidents, but computers don't, so there will be more accidents? Please clarify this for us.
rando289 13y ago
> we lose any chance at morality Our morality is mostly learned. It can grow. Yes, we do need the source to be available.
- npizzolato 13y ago
  Do you? Where's the source for the programs flying commercial jets? Do you still fly?
  - rando289 13y ago
    Good point. However, I don't own the jet, nor have any liability/responsibility if it's software fails. I do own the car, and I do have liability/responsibility for its operation.

eurleif 13y ago

You would want all that information for the purpose of proving the program was at fault, right? What if the company behind the software was automatically liable for all accidents? Wouldn't that answer that?

angersock 13y ago
I would want all that information as closure, since I wouldn't be able to walk again. Whether or not the program is functioning correctly, I want to know exactly how things went down--something that is finally possible if you automate driving. Holding the companies responsible is nice (and might as well be done), but until all cars are autonomous (and even then) there will be many cases where the initial conditions of an accident preclude anything but a harmful outcome. For example, a robot car doing the right thing could be boxed in by two malicious drivers and "forced" into hurting a bystander.

jotux 13y ago

>implemented by antisocial 20-something engineers working weird hours. I feel like this is a myth we should actively work to squash. The vast majority of engineers and coders are 30/40-somethings with normal social lives, families, and working 9-5 weekdays.

angersock 13y ago
Quite true--and yet, look at the companies making the news. Hell, in many cases your motion-planning is being done by people who were graduate students, and even then the stereotype...well, it fits, you know?
FatalError 13y ago
And even if they were, surely this is only a bad thing in that it might indicate that some potentially good engineers had been excluded from the workforce. Is reverse-bigotry really so far gone that some people genuinely think that being an "antisocial 20-something" makes a person a worse engineer?
- dagw 13y ago
  One of the key factors in becoming a good engineer is experience. a 20-something, antisocial or otherwise, basically by definition is lacking in this experience. Sure they may be really really smart and write incredibly clever code, but it takes more than that to be a good engineer.

MiguelHudnandez 13y ago

I think another way to look at it is: if all cars were on auto-pilot, you would have a much smaller chance of being injured or killed on your bicycle. So if it happens a hundred thousand times more with human drivers, but there's a person you can point your finger at afterwards, does that make anyone more comfortable?

thenmar 13y ago

I'm having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make. Is it that if a computer bug causes an accident, the victim wouldn't have an individual to fantasize about getting revenge on? That the company that developed the software wouldn't be held accountable? That humans have "morals" that make them avoid accidents, but computers don't, so there will be more accidents? Please clarify this for us.

rando289 13y ago

> we lose any chance at morality Our morality is mostly learned. It can grow. Yes, we do need the source to be available.

npizzolato 13y ago
Do you? Where's the source for the programs flying commercial jets? Do you still fly?
- rando289 13y ago
  Good point. However, I don't own the jet, nor have any liability/responsibility if it's software fails. I do own the car, and I do have liability/responsibility for its operation.