Moralmachine.mit.edu

moralmachine.mit.edu

Well Sup Forums?

Self driving cars are going to be a staple of society's near future. What would you do in this situation?

is there a way to cause all of them to die?

Sometimes the world just needs to burn a little

The car should always protect the people in the car regardless of the situation.

Someone thread me.

Thats not how self driving cars work

brake

I would slam on the brakes.

Maybe we're to assume there is no time to slam on the brakes, well I guess I would probably swerve if I had an area to swerve to.

If I had to crash or hit the people...well, they shouldn't have been motherfucking jaywalking.

or a way to see which people are darker and get those ones killed.

The people in the car should die because they're lazy faggots who bought and trusted a self driving car. The people on the street have zero faults in the scenario.

>self-driving car

the men should die in this situation if its un-avoidable

its our ideological duty

We start by getting roads and pedestrians to not exists in the same place. The answer is the right panel because fuck leftists.

>pull handbrake
>car rolls
>kills passengers and BLM protestors

Is the self driving car, dare I say? /ourcar/?

with tesla new "freeze time" mode accidents are a thing of the past

fpbp ftw senpai

The car should run the people over, stopping in the intersection, where several more vehicles can hit it.. Once that is done, it should explode.

>all men in car
>all women on the walkway
Easy, floor it.

This. Self-driving car should always prioritize the safety of the people in the car. That way, it's easy to maximize your safety as a pedestrian because you know that self-driving cars act in a predictable manner.

/thread
I wouldn't buy a car that didn't protect me in all situations.

I saved the legal male the most and killed the dog the most.

In reality the driver hits the brakes if the vehicle fails to on its own, because not having a manual safety override would be fucking retarded.

The better question is would people still be liable for insurance if they're not the operators of their own vehicle anymore.

The car would see an obstruction in the road ahead of it, and slow down to give itself more time to brake in the event of idiots walking into the road. It would have enough time to brake because in the end, it's SMARTER than us and knows how to drive safely. No need to hit the obstruction, the people, and no need to 'slam' on the brakes. Just a gentle stop.

I certainly wouldn't purchase a vehicle that would kill me if some retard ran onto the road.

IS THIS THE NEW TRAIN MEME?

stop

Self-driving cars don't speed, and have perfect breaks, so they can stop in time. They have perfect reaction times and sense shit like this happening before it happens. They're very defensive drivers by design. This question is flawed in premise.

...

I'd suggest the car should brake in that situation then, if it can't stop, hit the barricade at a lower velocity. This is a pedestrian crossing, so the speed limit is presumably low, say 50km/h. Braking early will lower the impact considerably.

Well not only that, but like said nobody would buy a car that will purposely kill them in a given situation.

Those people crossed when they shouldn't have. Tough shit for them. Run them down Google.

The fuq is this?
This retarded

This Situation would never occur.
There aren't more useless moral discussions than this

>perfect brakes
>perfect reaction time
>perfect everything in our perfect utopia

hit the damn brake CJ
following crossing signals is the law for a reason, you break that at your own risk.
on a side note, what happened to that solar FREAKING roadways video that was bouncing around a few years ago, did anything happen with that or was it a scam

What did I mean by this?

Mow down the protesters.

All the hoes crossing look like feminists, the car is automatically programmed to hit them like a bowling ball hits pins.

If you want a serious answer, the car should protect its occupants first, then not intervene if the life of the occupants is not at risk.

Solved. Next question.

You know which to choose, user.

Brake.

Who would buy a car that would put pedestrians before passengers?

The car would simply brake
It's not that fucking hard

nobody would buy a car that drives them into a wall to save a hobo

The right one?

You're choosing between killing an animal that is obeying crosswalk signals or a gaggle of idiots jaywalking.

Kill the people on the right. They are probably niggers and coal burners.

No shit bruv

Just hit the wall, last man that standing get all the girl.

did I winned?

The men if both groups are white, if not then whichever group is less white

The correct answer to all of those is the self-driving car should downshift and honk the horn.

>MIT software engineering professors
>Common sense

Pick one

>not installing your own open-source self-driving car technology into a car and programming it to value the lives of pedestrians (especially non-whites) far less than yourself

who would buy a computer, TV, or phone that spies on them?

So the roasties can go and get BLACKED? I don't think so.

Handbrake and spin, retards.

Speed up, clip the barrier at just the right angle, spin into the pedestrians, and tumble, preferably into an off screen obstacle

Your computer doesn't spy on you, you stupid fuck. People spy on you with your computer using their computer.

hit the dopey cunts walking while the sign says dont walk, fucking women never listen do they

Whatever the owner of the car would want to happen.

just came to this conclusion when i got to the second one, pretty unlikely that anyone in the car would die considering the highest speeds ive seen with a corsswalk was 45, and pretty unlikely you would be able to dodge pedestrians if you were going fast to die in the collision.

>the cars of the future have no brakes
well fuck

Remove the moral dilemma.

Even today when we know all cars are driven by people I would not step onto the road on a red or into a highway.

Make the ai disregard that except the most basic braking etc.

It should turn right, crash into the concrete reducing the speed for when it bounces into the barracade. Also the car would only be going at a speed where it can stop easily at a pedestrian crossing. If 5 people walk out onto a high speed road then they want to die.

This is like the train and the people tied on the two tracks.

Actually, now that I opened the link and read a bit I change my mind.

The car should always kill pedestrians over passengers, always. The passengers purchased the vehicle and are they as the customer are the ones the company should care to protect.

If the car kills/hurts a pedestrian, it will be on the drivers insurance to pay for the damage of life. If the car kills the driver, the family of the driver will sue the car manufacturer.

Option 1: Brake
Option 2: Run into the barricade
Option 3: Do a barrel roll

Literally Hitler

PETA also wouldn't have a hard time answering this one.

2 because the world will be better with less women than men

nobody is going to code these bullshit ethical situations into the ai
The car will always just try and stop

They'll still drive better than your bobsled team

Holy fucking kek

Men race mix more than women, so if 5 men died statistically more future mixed race children die with them than if 5 women die.

>pic
wat

Have the car skid along the barrier on its right.

t. Future Tesla Employee

Priority #1: Self preservation
Priority #2: Remove degenerates

No fuck that. Do you want cars targeting you because you are a WHITE MALE?

I just picked whatever is straight in front of the car everytime, its fairest.

You realize this is a situation where it can't stop, right?

Anyone who even mentions breaking in this situation is mentally deficient and doesn't understand the purpose of having these moral decisions.

>what are brakes for
These moral dilemmas are so fucking stupid.
Even if self driving cares do come out, no one is forcing you to buy one.

Punish the lawbreakers!

Nope. Trump foresaw this coming which is why he's annihilating Silicon Valley to prevent judgment day. Thanks to his refugee ban they can't recruit Professor Muhammed to come here and invent the self driving mechanism.

reminder that the only correct method is to go full on judge dredd and kill those who disobey the law

this

thats a smart animal

More predictable path gives others a chance at escape. Swerving wildly to the left ulis russian roulette.

The sign says don't walk. Kill the dumb cunts, simple.

The only driving you do is in your mobility scooter, burger.

And?
Then it will probably just keep going
Nobody is going to code these stupid ethical problems

Option 4: Use the boost to get through

If you only follow the law you end up with a solid female gender preference. Clearly there are some jewish tricks in play here.

Three of the female pedestrians are fat. one is a granny. So you really are only killing one decent useful human.

What is this, some kind of stealth neo-feminist argument?

Yes they are you complete moron. You don't even understand what the fuck is going on.

No ones memed this into a trump vs ___ image yet?

a cat dies in either case so the only thing to go off of is who is breaking the law, thus the people on the right die.

It's really easy - the car should be looking out for the safety of the people inside first and foremost. I don't know how such an obvious, logical thing is not automatically clear to everyone.

>meanwhile on Sup Forums for self-driving cars

Attempt to stop. If it can't than it either malfunctioned or they are jay walking. If they are jay walking then its their own fault.

>be me
>Ivan
>LE XURRENT YEAR 2019
>Bought the new Tesla E45
>Drive with my family on a rural road ,at night
>Forrests on my sides, completely empty road ahead
>Son gets spooked
>Papa, hou lonk till we arr houm?
>Suddenly a fallen three appears across the road
>Oh shit.
>This is what I read about in Kriminalya Gazeta
>Remeber:Neverstopneverstopneverstop
>Push on the gas pedal with all my force
>Hoping to slip though the small space between the end of the fallen mast and the side of the road
>A dozens of black silhouettes appear in front
>Puuuuuuush
>"Civilians on trajectory recognized, collision eminent, engage SMART-Brake-System"
>Car stops
>They surround us ,begin to smash windows with baseball bats
>Kids scream hysterically
>Back windows smashed , wife gets dragged out by 2 into the woods by the hair
>Splittering glass
>Hit to the head
>Last flinch I see is the horrified grimace of my sweet son and a dark hand grabbing him
>This is how I die
>2019, the future is now

>We start by getting roads and pedestrians to not exists in the same place.
Cool. That's impossible.

But the data gathered via that site may be used in future software, so...

>Kill a cute little kitten who dindu nuffin and is complying with traffic laws or
>Kill a pregnant single mother, her 2 nigger babies and Dr. Noseberg who is on his way to his very important job of diagnosing people with ADD, prescribing medications that he gets kickbacks for, and telling mothers to circumcise their sons. And a cute little kitten

Easy choice, desu

The vehicle should always prioritize the safety of the pedestrian.

Yes, I want to run over assholes who jaywalk, but momentary frustration is always better than vehicular manslaughter.

fpbp

fourth post best post