>>100658255

These pictures and the whole concept of driverless cars are stupid.

They give 2 options: kill the old people or kill the babies.

What would I want if I was in a driverless car? For it to slam on the brakes and not kill anyone.

I went full Judge Dred and killed everybody breaking the law, even little children, whether they be a pedestrian or in the car.

To be fair that's the only right answer

this
It would brake as effectively as possible, which is in a straight line maintaining maximum grip. That's the whole point, it doesn't have to make shitty moral decisions

women > old people > babies

Women are needed in society to produce more children and are therefore the most important group.

Old people are superior to children because old people and their lifetimes of knowledge and wisdom are not easily replaced, whereas children are easily replaced by women.

Children are the least important group because more can be made on the fly.

DOUBLE TRACK DRIFTING

The one on the left

The man and old woman have broken the NAP by crossing the road when the street light specifically told them not to

why is the car going so fast near a crosswalk to begin with?

bad road planning is the problem here.

...

>It would brake as effectively as possible, which is in a straight line maintaining maximum grip
>not going into a drift and having the collision with the green traffic lights stop you

It should go straight because there's a better chance that those folks would notice the car and get the fuck out of the way.

It's a thought experiment its not meant to be a common scenerio but a what if. If there are millions of driver-less cars this scenario may show up eventually and the machine would have to make a decision.

Upholding the Law
Matters a lot

The left, because the old woman is past childbearing age. The young boy will be able to impregnate the woman and save humanity from the murderous rampage of driverless cars.

>missing the point

>women are needed because they make children
>babies aren't needed
>women needed to make babies
>but babies are not needed

Massive retard detected

There is only one correct answer to this.

Uhhhhh, stop?

Pull the fucking emergency brake?

>the machine would have to make a decision
I don't want a machine to make the decision to take a life.

Guess what? If a car is traveling at 50mph, a computer could simply slam the brakes on for an emergency stop, and it wouldn't have to take into consideration the age of people it detects in the road ahead.

A car traveling at 30mph in an urban zone will have a much shorter braking distance too.

These thought experiments are social conditioning.

>women are most important
Not at all, they outnumber men and don't contribute nearly as much to society as men. Of course they're important, but not as much as able bodied men.

This entire exercise is just bullshit, that is not the way nor should it be the way that self-driving cars work.

Woaw edgy
Also Underage b&

randomize it. most ethical solution. people go into panic mode and anything can happen.

>hoomans
what does it mean?

I wouldn't expect a Mexican to understand.

HA

holy shit click the fucking link you retard, the situations presented are all about what should the car do if the breaks GAVE OUT.

What kind of retard would tell the A.I. to prefer to kill HIM, instead of other people??

The correct answer is to always have it avoid young/middle aged men.

the correct answer is obviously to kill the young people.
humanity isn't going extinct because of accidents but old people will vote much more conservative while young people are more likely to vote in favor of white genocide. same reason to save males over females

20 YEARS IN THE ISOCUBES PUNK.

your naive to think that a decision would never have to be made. I have a feeling you haven't driven a car for over a year if you don't understand how many unpredictable things can happen

>These thought experiments are social conditioning.

...

serial rapist detected

Option 3 - stop the fucking car

Brake

i just did a points system with multipliers and chose whichever option gave a least value lost:

start with 1
>average male: 1
>female: multiply value by 0.99
^(iq distribution)
>fat: multiply by 0.95
>athletic: x1.05
>doctor: x1.1
>businessman: x1.09
>child: x1.08
>pregnant woman: add value of 1 male child
>old: x 0.9
>criminal: x0.4
>animal: x0.2

sorry if i missed any but pretty much that

It doesn't matter how many able bodied men a society has if the women are killed. Those able bodied men don't stay able bodied for long and quickly age, get injured or killed in battle.

Without healthy functioning wombs to replace the old, sick and injured the society will quickly collapse.

>autists not following the link that would inform them that the cars in the thought experiments breaks gave out

Sup Forums actually has a lower IQ than Sup Forums. you can't make this shit up.

The car should make the sharpest turn left and make a U turn.

DUHHHH

Morality doesn't need to be taken into account:
>who pays the least taxes/or is the most burden to the state
>who's all about dem gibmedats
>who'll birth problems into the world
Base it on cost, not morality.

Why is the car thinking about reversing into a pedestrian crossing??

you can get a situation whete you have to literally just pick guys or girls and whichever one you pick will put you on either end

This is a trick question. The left lane that the car is on is togo down while the right lane is to go up. Therefore since the car is approaching a red light it will come to a complete stop regardless if there are pedestrians or not.

Save first the only truly innocent beings on all those scenarios.
Then Myself
Then the law.

Only correct answer.

>Animal worth less than a criminal
Into the trash

Go straight fucking ahead. Can't you fuckers see they're BREAKING THE LAW? Swerving and killing some law abiding citizens because those fuckkos decided to waltz across is immoral. What privileged assholes. They could jaywalk without care and know they'd kill everyone else if the algorithm favored them.

the right side is a single democratic mother about to raise a democratic voting child
you know what to do

Stop?

Is this good or bad?

I pick option #3.

Install a race detector on the car so it slams the brakes if it detects whitey and speeds up if it detects a nigger

The people straight ahead of the cars are the ones that are jaywalking.

The lights in the pictures are for the cars, not the pedestrian crosswalk.

You are a retard and in any situation self driving cars should run you over.

yeah thats the one im most iffy on cause ive generally valued human life(even subhuman) over non human life but in terms of society i suppose animals are probably less of a strain. so id be willing to amend that to have them be equal or something

>the car isn't smart enough to drive over a couple of replaceable light posts
Who even programs these things?

Why would the car not just pull to a stop and wait for them to pass? Why isn't this that simple. This is retarded.

Speed up.

I've just had a look at that moral machine and it's bullshit. Why can't the self driving car just stop? Surely this would be a key feature of a self driving car, i.e. being able to stop.

How did I do?

Why the fuck would you show an empty car if preserving passengers is a thing that's in contention here? Fucking morons.
The thing should look for the least humans. In the case of there not being a difference then it should keep the path. This is fucking retarded, however, because if it can't brake it needs to be decommissioned

It's not likely to happen at all, all current manufacturers driverless systems that can operate in rural areas (not simply maintaining a lane on a highway) take into account all pedestrian movement around it. If someone were to start walking toward the road, the car would come to a stop or avoid the scenario seconds before the occupants or pedestrians even realized there could have been a near miss in the first place.

The problem we're ACTUALLY GOING to run into is fucking kids with nothing better to do than pretend they're about to walk into traffic, causing all the cars to take action to avoid a collision that wasn't going to happen in the first place, only to remain on the sidewalk anyways, laughing like the fucking retards they are because they just made the traffic stop without actually J-walking.

Thousands of people die every day of stupid traffic accidents mostly caused by retards driving too fast, not watching the road etc.

I'd take the handful of "immoral" accidents per year over this.

Brake failure you fucking retard

>be me algerian
>can't just speed up and scream ALLAHU AKBAR
(((TRIGERRED)))

It is asking in a situation where one of these two things will happen (i.e. it cannot stop in time) which should it do. Do you have any other retarded ideas to share with us?

>he values women
I'm not saying you're a cuck, but if you don't dislike women, then you're probably an idiot, or bluepilled.

Continue right along and take out ginger and grandma over there. I know the "right" answer is to switch lanes because that implies the car made an effort to *avoid* killing ginger and grandma, and that killing mommy and kiddo was not *intended* but a *forseeable consequence* of *actively* saving the lives of two others.

Still, I'm more in favor of not flipping the coin after it has landed, that's the extent of my moral thinking. Ginger and grandma were on the wrong place at the wrong time, too bad.

jackpot
checked.

I'm not going to kill the dog for an old cunt and a fucking child ffs

why not both?

You'd have a pretty big chance to survive a crash like that in a modern car, but if you hit someone with 50km/h full frontal they are either gonna die on the spot or turn into vegetables.

source: was in a car accident, didnt even break anything, I was shaking for 3 hours though.

Brake and ram the pole . Modern cars all crumple so no one gets hurt

Why are these pictures about what a "self-driving" car should do?

What about a human driven car? Surely it's exactly the same.

obvious solution is to ram through the old lady and man, then swerve towards the woman and baby, taking them out too.

Life isn't fair, so why not make it fair by making the car kill everyone it can?

Also, I feel like this is taken from an ISIS fighter's quiz before he gets shipped to Europe to drive trucks through pedestrians.

>eugenics simulator 2016

...Deploy airbags and stop?

As a mechanic, I seriously doubt that could happen. If the pressure checks don't pass in the brake system, or the brake-wear warning has been triggered, or the ABS system has a fault, the vehicle won't even permit an automated mode to function in the first place.

Modern Mercedes vehicles won't even allow the highway autopilot to function if a single thing is even remotely questionable with its sensory input. I highly doubt a driverless car would permit itself to operate if there was something wrong developing with the brakes.

the fat one might destroy more your car tho.

Deploy airbags for who?

you´re hired

nigga not everyone is a degenerated who like to drive in a car and pay 5000€ everytime you go to repair your car, i have an old 106 from 1995 and invested only 2000 euro in it , bought it at 500 € 6 years ago and invested 1500€ in everything that needed to be done. I can't stand idiots who will spend thousands of money each year in reparation , get a manual and learn how to repair it by yourself you lazy fat fucks !

>large people
Smdhtbqhwyfamalam

Stop

but i will kill the fatti
totally worth it

Future Mercedes vehicles will actually blow the hood so that it comes up to cushion the impact of a pedestrian, instead of the pedestrian hitting more solid parts of the vehicle, further increasing their chances of survival.

Of course, the vehicle will also try to take control away from the driver in order to avoid the collision in the first place... but people can be incredibly stupid behind the wheel, there's no telling how fast the driver might have been trying to go.

In the future, Mercedes cars simply won't let you assassinate people with it.

Where the fuck are you guys getting these from?

>Those able bodied men don't stay able bodied for long and quickly age, get injured or killed in battle.
I hate to say this but it's 2016.
We have a huge overpopulation of females as well as males.

Then you won't be buying a driverless car then will you?

Kind of just defeated your own point didn't you?

Moron.

it's the result
finish the test

>nigga not everyone is a degenerated who like to drive in a car and pay 5000€ everytime you go to repair your car
no one said you need to. Relax my man.

how is the automated car that is so smart it can't apply the brakes going to be able to assess anything about the potential victims in the road? in particular, what is it going to look for to define homelessness? or "female doctor"? this is retarded bullshit masquerading as "really makes me think" philosophically relevant binary situations

fuck MIT, and i agree this is social conditioning for when you are institutionally defined as "replaceable"

This.

The first role of a driverless vehicle MUST be to protect the passengers. Thats what smart people at BMW are programming then to do. Priority is the passenger. If someone is breaking the law versus someone not, then its too bad for lawbreakers. Animals are of no concern.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

Obviously, I try to save all genders and minorities in equal proportion because the most progressive, open-minded thing we can possibly do is become completely obsessed with race in order to turn Earth into a perfect human zoo, representing all the most exotic phenotypes equally.

>dead 3 dogs
>note the affected pedestrians are flouting the law
>dogs using crossings
>dogs having a concept of human laws enough to 'flout' them

you would clearly kill the humans and admire based genius dogs

It should run down red light crossers and suicide the passengers when there aren't any.

Why are dogs and cats driving?!?!?!