3 ms·
Don't think we're going to ask computers to count the cost of a life, anytime soon. Especially since humans have a hard enough job doing it [1]. It will be d
by stkni 11y ago
Don't think we're going to ask computers to count the cost of a life, anytime soon. Especially since humans have a hard enough job doing it [1].
It will be designed, I imagine, to do the safest thing possible given an emergency. Which is in this instance, as most people suggest, stop as quickly as possible.
Nothing to see, move on.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/business/economy/17regulation.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/business/economy/17regulat...
- netcan 11y agoI totally agree, but…. :) As silly and pointless as it to worry about whether robocar morality should be primarily deontology or utilitarian, I have to admit I love it. I'm a sucker for this kind of science fiction thinking, brought on by everyone's expectations of technological progress. The average person has a tremendous amount of confidence of the "they'll figure it out" kind. I think it's a good sign, the opposite of cynicism. Also, I think moral questions are interesting and if teaching is the best way to learn, maybe imagining how to teach a machine to be moral is a good exercise. On that note, deontology fits nicely with the way computers tend to think - rules. OTOH, utilitarianism means seeing the future - a nice use for all our future computational power. While we're on that, do computers have a duty to be true to their nature?