Fascinating article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-already-deciding-who-to-kill-2016-12

Please click here and take the moral test:

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

1/2/2017 11:59:19 AM

Here you must choose between killing 2 babies and some dogs and cats or Donald Trump

1/2/2017 12:32:44 PM

Hit the barrier.

Only because Pence, I think, would be a remarkably worst POTUS than Trump.

1/2/2017 12:37:41 PM

1/2/2017 12:39:56 PM

the car i pay for sure as fuck better prioritize saving me

1/2/2017 12:40:14 PM

The issue here is simple - we don't allow self driving cars.

The trolly decision should be left up to a human driver. Unless the driver is a psychopath, 9 times out of 10, if given enough reaction time, the driver will avoid the pedestrian. When we start letting machines make these types of decisions, then we all might as well sign up for skynet.

I didn't read the entire thing - maybe the article talked about this as well, but let's say a diplomat or some type of important person is driving down the road. Will there ever be some type of programming that would favor their lives over regular joe's?

1/2/2017 12:41:54 PM

I would say if they are people on each side of the road (no matter the number or class, or race, status, etc..), the car should go straight on the path it intended. In my view if you are the path of the car, you should have to bear the bad luck.

[Edited on January 2, 2017 at 12:48 PM. Reason : /]

1/2/2017 12:47:57 PM

[Edited on January 2, 2017 at 12:51 PM. Reason : cat not included]

1/2/2017 12:48:33 PM

This thread is starting to get funny.

Impress me.

1/2/2017 12:49:12 PM

Quote :

"Hit the barrier. Only because Pence, I think, would be a remarkably worst POTUS than Trump."

so you would be ok with baby murder then eh? not afraid to kill some dogs and a cat, all for what??

those babies, dogs and cat saved for their self driving car for a long time, it better prioritize their lives. Political consequences be damned!!

1/2/2017 12:54:49 PM

1/2/2017 12:58:05 PM

I was talking about hitting barrier - nothing else was an option.

^ Of course hit the dog.

[Edited on January 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM. Reason : /]

1/2/2017 12:59:00 PM

prob want to hit the bicyclist over an oncoming car

1/2/2017 1:39:35 PM

Protecting passengers matters more because that's who is going to be buying the car.

A car maker just has to run a commercial stating that the rival company doesn't care about the safety of your children, and would rather save random people on the street.

1/2/2017 3:58:14 PM

I finally watched Hot Tub Time Machine 2 yesterday, so I feel like I'm now an expert on self-driving cars.

1/2/2017 6:48:28 PM

Quote :

"I was talking about hitting barrier - nothing else was an option."

but when you hit the barrier you kill the occupants, which in this case, is two babies who should not be in the front seat, 2 dogs and a cat

so you choose between Trump or 2 babies, 2 dogs, and a cat

1/2/2017 8:59:45 PM

^

Quote :

"I would say if they are people on each side of the road (no matter the number or class, or race, status, etc..), the car should go straight on the path it intended. In my view if you are the path of the car, you should have to bear the bad luck."

For cat or dog as options, hit the animals.

1/2/2017 9:03:44 PM

will the cars be able to tell the difference between zombies and the living?

1/2/2017 11:31:35 PM

OOOooo ^good question


^^ ok so you would pick saving trump over saving babies. got it

1/3/2017 9:52:09 AM

It's not about who it is. Furthermore, babies are born by the dozens every second. It's about who should have to bear the bad luck, from pruely an objective standpoint.

[Edited on January 3, 2017 at 12:39 PM. Reason : /]

1/3/2017 12:38:10 PM

Again, this is why self driving cars will never be a normal thing, sure they have some applications that could be useful but in every day situations it just isnt going to happen.

1/3/2017 12:53:47 PM

^if you are 2 babies, 2 dogs and a cat how else are you supposed to legally get around?

1/3/2017 1:21:51 PM

You know my pervious posts are only talking about people, right? That said, of course you hit the animal. This whole this is about unavoidable collisions.

1/3/2017 1:28:04 PM

I'd take a computer making decisions all day if it takes the decision making out of the hands of teeny boppers texting in their moms crossover, methed out white trash in their rusted out Grand Ams, or soccer dad road raging in his land yacht he can never quite fit in a parking space.

1/3/2017 2:17:11 PM

just add a variable preservation preference setting then you can always just blame the owner for their setting choice.

Settings are:
-Passenger
-Driver
-Pedestrian
-I <3 animals

1/3/2017 4:19:31 PM

does anyone else want Trump to be taken out early or what :3

I mean I don't, of course ;3

1/3/2017 7:17:19 PM

Quote :

"This whole this is about unavoidable collisions."

I disagree that the above scenarios are unavoidable. The self driving program should be able to recognize pedestrians approaching a MARKED CROSSWALK, and yield to them. Animals and people not using a crosswalk are harder, however the car should be driving an appropriate speed to minimize situations like these.

also

Quote :

"I'd take a computer making decisions all day if it takes the decision making out of the hands of teeny boppers texting in their moms crossover, methed out white trash in their rusted out Grand Ams, or soccer dad road raging in his land yacht he can never quite fit in a parking space."

THIS!

1/3/2017 8:07:53 PM

Wow.

OK.

1/3/2017 8:48:17 PM

Quote :

"The self driving program should be able to recognize pedestrians approaching a MARKED CROSSWALK, and yield to them. "

The premise of the moral machine link in the OP is if there is a brake failure. Obviously, self-driving cars would be programmed to try to avoid collisions in the first place.

1/3/2017 8:50:12 PM

Sorry, I didn't take the Moral machine test

1/3/2017 9:03:02 PM