> Allowing designers to pick the outcome of tunnel-like problems treats those dilemmas as if they must have a “right” answer that can be selected and applied in

> Allowing designers to pick the outcome of tunnel-like problems treats those dilemmas as if they must have a “right” answer that can be selected and applied in all similar situations [...] it becomes clear that there are certain deeply personal moral questions that will arise with autonomous cars that ought to be answered by drivers. The answer is not as clear-cut as the example would suggest. First, it's not zero-sum since computer control results in more safety overall. The computer has more information available (e.g. sensor readings on all sides) and can react much faster (eliminating the ~1.5 s typical reaction time [1]). The driver and the kid in the road will both survive more often this way. Second, drivers can be pretty selfish. E.g. everyday behaviors like cutting people off or running red lights offer little benefit for the cost of endangering everyone on the road. How many would simply set it to "always drive over the kid in the tunnel"? [1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/STHF0203_1#.U9wU2fldXzg http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/STHF0203_1#.U9wU2...