4 ms·

This is easy to answer and quite frankly a stupid question. Why should you have to pay for someone else's mistake? If a child runs out in front of a car, it i

This is easy to answer and quite frankly a stupid question. Why should you have to pay for someone else's mistake? If a child runs out in front of a car, it is either their fault or their guardian's fault for allowing them to run into traffic. It's tragic, but to suggest the driver should give up their life for someone else's mistake is ridiculous. Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances?

riquito 12y ago
> Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances? I suspect there are various classes of people that would choose this option. Believers of certain religions, old/hill people with high morals or strictly pragmatic, aspirant suicides, risk lovers, etc... Not for me, though :-)
- informatimago 12y ago
  Actually, most google cars will be void of any passengers. They'll be google trucks (or amazon trucks). The "ethical" question takes a whole new dimension when it's the life of a child vs. millions of dollar of merchandize, expected-just in-time by enterprises who need them to make billions of profit.
- echaozh 12y ago
  The point is, even if people do buy such a car, they don't often come back for a second car. The business will run out of customers very quickly. You do the math.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The point is, even if people do buy such a car, they don't often come back for a second car. The business will run out of customers very quickly. This seems to assume that the frequency with which drivers (automated or otherwise) are faced with "someone is going to die, you or the other person, and which one depends on your driving choices" situations is very high. This is not consistent with the evidence.
troels 12y ago
Or put differently - The cars prime directive should be to serve its master (the passenger).
blatherard 12y ago
In the specific example of a child at a tunnel entrance, you've got a good point. However, I think there are plenty of scenarios which you can make up that function similarly without providing a culpable victim. For example, the self-driving car you're in is driving by an elementary school at the end of the day, so there are a number of children on the sidewalk. Suddenly, a truck appears coming at your car going in the wrong direction. Should your car take an evasive maneuver onto the sidewalk, with a high likelihood of striking a child?
- waps 12y ago
  I would argue that traffic law provides the answer. If you can't avoid violating any law, there is a clear sequence defined you should use to decide what law to violate (they're all numbered, TLDR is : violate the larger numbers first). In traffic law people actually thought about this. First you are to safeguard pedestrians, then cyclists and motorcyclists then cars, then trucks/buses/... and finally yourself. Things like right side of the road, red lights, ... are far down. Things like trains/trams are tricky. What is not generally understood is that this sequence matters. Most people realize that in order not to block an ambulance, you are not just allowed, but required to run a red light. Less known is that ignoring road safety, to some extent, is legal and required if you're bringing a seriously injured person to the hospital. If you can avoid a collision by crossing to the wrong side of the street, you are required to do that ... So the legal answer here is simple and well-defined : Assuming you can't move to the other side of the road reasonably safely, you should slam your car into the truck (needless to say, as slowly as possible). You are certainly NOT to take liberties with the safety of pedestrians to avoid hitting a truck. This is complicated by other laws of course. First you are not expected to do more than a certain "standard" human would do, second in this situation obviously there is a problem of intent when things do go south (did you intend to hit those pedestrians ? What about if you made that choice to avoid the truck ? What if you and the truck both decided to avoid each other and both went for the b). Who is the "root" responsible, and how is the responsibility divided amongst the people who violated the law ? So this makes legal culpability in these sorts of cases a murky area. If you slam your car into a kindergarten to protect yourself, though, I think it's reasonable to expect prison time and a hefty financial problem. But the answer seems to be : if there is any way to avoid the truck, ignoring all normal traffic laws (but NOT hitting anyone), that's the way to go. If there's not, you hit the truck.
Bakkot 12y ago
> Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances? Maybe you'll find this version more interesting: suppose the car has the opportunity to save a dozen people (who are not themselves at fault) by sacrificing you (or failing to do everything in its power to protect you). Should it? If no, which seems to be the answer you think is obvious, consider that you are far more likely to find yourself as one of the dozen potential people saved than as the sacrifice, especially since we're deciding on the rule for all autonomous cars, not just yours. So following your logic makes it more likely for you to get killed.
santosha 12y ago
The example is illustrative. There is nothing stupid about the original question. Someone else's fault and self-preservation are just convenient escapes in this situation. Suppose instead of a child running in front of the car, it was a large rock. Going straight will kill you. Swerving left will kill a mom and two kids, going right will kill an old trucker. What does your car do? By the 'fault' logic, it was nobody else's fault that the rock landed in front of you, why should they die so you can live? Going right and slamming your semi into the mini-Cooper means you live without a scratch, but good luck to the couple in the car. Going left and hitting the other truck there will probably make your truck flip and give you broken bones, but nobody dies. What now?
- sixQuarks 12y ago
  now, this is a much better worded question. I stand corrected, the question is not stupid. The scenario was not the best one.
pilsetnieks 12y ago
It's easy to answer, and quite frankly, the opposite of your suggestion - you swerve away from the person in the road. There's 2000 kg of car to protect you whereas there's nothing to protect the person in the road against a 2000 kg missile coming at them.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances? What is the practical difference between that and getting into any car operating in an environment with other cars (automated or not) that are "programmed" (whether literally, or as a description of the operator's behavior) to kill you instead of their operator if there is a choice?
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  If you are in a car, about the only way another car could kill you is by crashing into your car. And two cars that are both programmed to save the operator over others are not going to evaluate their surroundings and both decide that the best action to save their operator is to crash into each other... unless there is literally no other option. And if that is the case, then the crash was going to happen with or without autonomy or questionable ethics.

riquito 12y ago

> Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances? I suspect there are various classes of people that would choose this option. Believers of certain religions, old/hill people with high morals or strictly pragmatic, aspirant suicides, risk lovers, etc... Not for me, though :-)

informatimago 12y ago
Actually, most google cars will be void of any passengers. They'll be google trucks (or amazon trucks). The "ethical" question takes a whole new dimension when it's the life of a child vs. millions of dollar of merchandize, expected-just in-time by enterprises who need them to make billions of profit.
echaozh 12y ago
The point is, even if people do buy such a car, they don't often come back for a second car. The business will run out of customers very quickly. You do the math.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The point is, even if people do buy such a car, they don't often come back for a second car. The business will run out of customers very quickly. This seems to assume that the frequency with which drivers (automated or otherwise) are faced with "someone is going to die, you or the other person, and which one depends on your driving choices" situations is very high. This is not consistent with the evidence.

troels 12y ago

Or put differently - The cars prime directive should be to serve its master (the passenger).

blatherard 12y ago

In the specific example of a child at a tunnel entrance, you've got a good point. However, I think there are plenty of scenarios which you can make up that function similarly without providing a culpable victim. For example, the self-driving car you're in is driving by an elementary school at the end of the day, so there are a number of children on the sidewalk. Suddenly, a truck appears coming at your car going in the wrong direction. Should your car take an evasive maneuver onto the sidewalk, with a high likelihood of striking a child?

waps 12y ago
I would argue that traffic law provides the answer. If you can't avoid violating any law, there is a clear sequence defined you should use to decide what law to violate (they're all numbered, TLDR is : violate the larger numbers first). In traffic law people actually thought about this. First you are to safeguard pedestrians, then cyclists and motorcyclists then cars, then trucks/buses/... and finally yourself. Things like right side of the road, red lights, ... are far down. Things like trains/trams are tricky. What is not generally understood is that this sequence matters. Most people realize that in order not to block an ambulance, you are not just allowed, but required to run a red light. Less known is that ignoring road safety, to some extent, is legal and required if you're bringing a seriously injured person to the hospital. If you can avoid a collision by crossing to the wrong side of the street, you are required to do that ... So the legal answer here is simple and well-defined : Assuming you can't move to the other side of the road reasonably safely, you should slam your car into the truck (needless to say, as slowly as possible). You are certainly NOT to take liberties with the safety of pedestrians to avoid hitting a truck. This is complicated by other laws of course. First you are not expected to do more than a certain "standard" human would do, second in this situation obviously there is a problem of intent when things do go south (did you intend to hit those pedestrians ? What about if you made that choice to avoid the truck ? What if you and the truck both decided to avoid each other and both went for the b). Who is the "root" responsible, and how is the responsibility divided amongst the people who violated the law ? So this makes legal culpability in these sorts of cases a murky area. If you slam your car into a kindergarten to protect yourself, though, I think it's reasonable to expect prison time and a hefty financial problem. But the answer seems to be : if there is any way to avoid the truck, ignoring all normal traffic laws (but NOT hitting anyone), that's the way to go. If there's not, you hit the truck.

Bakkot 12y ago

> Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances? Maybe you'll find this version more interesting: suppose the car has the opportunity to save a dozen people (who are not themselves at fault) by sacrificing you (or failing to do everything in its power to protect you). Should it? If no, which seems to be the answer you think is obvious, consider that you are far more likely to find yourself as one of the dozen potential people saved than as the sacrifice, especially since we're deciding on the rule for all autonomous cars, not just yours. So following your logic makes it more likely for you to get killed.

santosha 12y ago

The example is illustrative. There is nothing stupid about the original question. Someone else's fault and self-preservation are just convenient escapes in this situation. Suppose instead of a child running in front of the car, it was a large rock. Going straight will kill you. Swerving left will kill a mom and two kids, going right will kill an old trucker. What does your car do? By the 'fault' logic, it was nobody else's fault that the rock landed in front of you, why should they die so you can live? Going right and slamming your semi into the mini-Cooper means you live without a scratch, but good luck to the couple in the car. Going left and hitting the other truck there will probably make your truck flip and give you broken bones, but nobody dies. What now?

sixQuarks 12y ago
now, this is a much better worded question. I stand corrected, the question is not stupid. The scenario was not the best one.

pilsetnieks 12y ago

It's easy to answer, and quite frankly, the opposite of your suggestion - you swerve away from the person in the road. There's 2000 kg of car to protect you whereas there's nothing to protect the person in the road against a 2000 kg missile coming at them.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Who in their right mind would get inside a car that is programmed to commit suicide in certain "ethical" circumstances? What is the practical difference between that and getting into any car operating in an environment with other cars (automated or not) that are "programmed" (whether literally, or as a description of the operator's behavior) to kill you instead of their operator if there is a choice?

jack-r-abbit 12y ago
If you are in a car, about the only way another car could kill you is by crashing into your car. And two cars that are both programmed to save the operator over others are not going to evaluate their surroundings and both decide that the best action to save their operator is to crash into each other... unless there is literally no other option. And if that is the case, then the crash was going to happen with or without autonomy or questionable ethics.