3 ms·
> this is a moral choice of the type that robots can't make. The driver in Victoria did not make a moral choice. Did they really weigh the life of the rabbit a
by robotresearcher 12y ago
> this is a moral choice of the type that robots can't make.
The driver in Victoria did not make a moral choice. Did they really weigh the life of the rabbit against death and injury of seven people? Extremely unlikely.
A robot, like an experienced driver, could easily use the heuristic that hitting the small thing is safer than hitting the big thing.
- kamaal 12y ago>>Did they really weigh the life of the rabbit against death and injury of seven people? I would say yes. Firstly I would see what the driver actually did. Did the driver have the seven people in plain sight when he/she made that decision? But for sure the driver did make a moral decision to save the Rabbit's life. It would have even been the case where the person thought he could save the rabbit's life without harming the humans. So you have to make decisions which are purely not mathematical here. >>could easily use the heuristic that hitting the small thing is safer than hitting the big thing. How would this hold against hitting some one below average height versus hitting some one tall. Or running over a baby Vs an aged person. Right there are all kinds of moral dilemma.
- jbarham 12y agoI'm not blaming the driver for making an immoral decision but I am saying that many more experienced drivers would not have swerved. For example, when driving in Africa where stray dogs are common, my father had a pre-determined policy not to swerve to avoid them given that it increased the probability of an accident involving human injury. As I say in a separate comment that "small thing" may be human baby or toddler on the road.