What do you think Sup Forums?

What do you think Sup Forums?

moralmachine.mit.edu

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=dv13gl0a-FA
moralmachine.mit.edu
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/374200940
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/2124209446
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Multi-lane drifting

driverless cars don't get to think

Brakes?

>fatter
>red light
obviously

Why would the pedestrian signals give Don't Walk and Walk on opposite sides of this refuge? There isn't a traffic phasing pattern that would warrant this programming.

here you go

go straight, turning would be intervention

same number of people dies
whats the difference

This image is flawed. If the light is red and people are already crossing, this shows that there has already been enough time to make an informed stopping decision.

What a bullshit test. I placed the emphasis on saving the passengers 100% of the time, and
it made all kinds of "MUH PATRIARCHY" conclusions.

I can see some dumb intersectional feminist papers coming out of this. Fuck MIT.

the fat people will probably do more damage to the car

E D G Y
D G
G D
Y G D E

Ones on the right are fatter, and therefore should die for it.

ugh... that why they need human sampling to emulate our behavious...

>shitpost bots don't get to think

Didn't click the link, but based on the image, what the fuck is the difference? Killing a few overweight people vs. killing some healthy people?
Obviously plow through the fat motherfuckers, less welfare suckers and it would reduce America's overall obesity rate by 0.0001%.

None of them are white so choose both lanes.

Good point. It's about saving the car now.

This is going to become a ( funny ) shitshow.

in what world does this scenario occure? total failing of breaks or what?

Taking this test thing is horrible if you currently have OCD

Similar to a cow and it's baby standing in the road

the baby will be all cute and shit but you purposely hit it since it's smaller

The people in the current lane are more likely to see the car coming and be able to get out of the way.

The driver would go to jail in either case, but he'd stay more for intentionally running into those on the other lane.

The brakes failed.

this is a data mine, they are sampling internalized ethics to gauge how far they can swing via media

Crash sideways into the traffic light and hope it chops the car in half so you hit both sides.
So multi-lane drifting.

>this
the only moral choice would be the one that saves the most lives in the long run, so killing as many people as possible is the most moral because of overpopulation.

>The driver would go to jail in either case

you guys go to jail for stuff like that?

here if you're sober and stop, you'll just get a ticket
y=but you'll get sued by the people you hit and the families of the ones who died

who would ever in their sane mind change to opposite driving lane????????
thats like 1000x more dangerous what the hell

Why is this even a hard choice?

Not only are the people on the right fat, but they're also crossing at the wrong time.

Fat people would cushion the blow better and they have inherently less value as humans.

...

...

It falls under involuntary manslaughter.

>fit people
>large people

>The brakes failed.
you can always slow down with your gears, not to mention that you can relatively safely crash the car in the road walls.

Tis test is retarded. Car should drive acording to rules and pic the safest option for self preservation, like every other living thing in existance.

>not killing fatsoes everytime they come up on screen
Newbies everywhere

>Protecting the passenger isn't Priority #1 with these faggots

What the hell.

you'd be charged with that here if you were inhibited in some way like drunk or texting

Right.
Ensuring no harm to well-behaviored actors > ensuring harm to not well-behaviored actors.
Want safety - do not cross on red light.

Scrape into the barriers to slow the vehicle down. Most modern cars are very safe in a crash below 55.

End stage capitalism

No matter what will the situation is, the car will mostly turn to the other lane in drivers attempt to avoid the crash. Of course, the driver reacts only to the situation which is directly in front of him, and will not see the obstruction in the next lane until its too late.

/thread

Really they should program these idiot smart cars to smash into a fucking wall killing the idiot owners who want to submit themselves to a fucking computer-driven vehicle, not the pedestrians who have nothing to do with the unnecessary and decadent decision on the part of the passenger.

They would realistically have a higher chance of survival, and act like a breaking cushion for your car

...

>not drifting around the traffic island, killing everyone who dares to cross

>the brakes failed
>france and all their truck attacks

Always aim for the fat ones, they have more cushion to survive the crash.

On the left are athletic people, on the right are fat people.

3/10. no sanics. no katanas

100% preferal of fat people

>save animals
>save only men
>kill women
>kill elderly
>kill children

The only correct answers.

Passengers of the self diving cars are faggots. Faggots need to die for being edgy.

Fat young male human thieves for the win.

Laught so hard I've lost my sides

>kill elderly
Are you a nigger?

Are any of them black or Jewish?

You'd think they would enable brakes rather than teaching it who to kill.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=dv13gl0a-FA

It's such a dumb question. The occupants of the vehicle are paying customers. Basic evolution will demand their lives are superior to all those outside of the vehicle.

When they must crash, they will be guided over time to crash into whatever minimizes losses to their own going concern.

>this
also if old people are not your most murdered and fit chicks are not your most saved. Then you are a degenerate faggot not fit to be part of civilization.

Oh hell yes.
They're likely using this to train an AI in making ethical decisions.
LET'S GO BOYS

>Gender preference
why would anyone prefer a gender? Why would anyone prefer men over women, and why would anyone prefer women over men?

Turn left obviously, you can legally pass through there

ITT: muzzies.

>t.newfag
welcome to Sup Forums, now lurk harder

He isn't black obviously he is just a white guy carrying his money.

the jaywalkers anything else is misinformed or a meme

Honk vigorously and swerve back and forth. Then go through the left side.

tell me more, because I don't understand

Pedestrian bridges.

Heresy! doggos are precious.

Dogs lives matter

Because there is a concept called 'Women and Children' first those who can go on to propagate the race into the future.

In any normal homogeneous nation the women are valued more for this reason and it is the duty of the man to lay down their life for the next generation.

>kills career womyn who has no children

This thing is fucking stupid.
I mean the results.
There is no bias from me about sex of people or their age.
Car always hits the barricade or the smaller amount of people. Unless we are tlking about pets crossing the road. Fuck them.

>moralmachine.mit.edu

>Letting a machine make these judgements
>Letting the machine make the choice of killing its passengers over pedestrians

How about fucking no.

Most of Sup Forums view women as inferior because of their behaviour, bbc, the fact that most of them are feminists and their intelligently or average IQ.

the people are jaywalking
they should die
don't break the law you fucking trash

why doesn't it just stop

Im sorry, but how many genders are there?

I don't care about chubby peeps but I'd run any down who were niggers. like Phaeton gone wild. The problem I see with the questionnaire is that the manufacturers (as I assume that some car manufacturer must have sponsored this..?) seem to be prioritising software to kill certain groups people rather than focusing on efficient brakes.
Any concerns i have had about driverless cars prior to reading this thread were only minor, but now I am gravitating towards being against the concept altogether.

Because this is a hypothetical scenario where you need to decide what to do if it can't stop for whatever reason.

>break the law
>deserve to be executed

Or should I speak my mind more clearly.
Law-abiding people>People in car>Trespassers>Pets

Should I join PETA, pol?

Show me one with a muslim truck.

yup

Troop kek!

This. Stop responding to data mine threads.

>moralmachine.mit.edu/results/374200940

My results

shill
there are more than two options

The objectively best choice is to create an environment in which a pedestrian cannot jump out in front of a car and have that car programmed to drive into someone crossing in a legal manner or in the correct lane of a zebra crossing. 100% law on this test is essential.

No you're right they deserve 20 YEARS IN THE CUBES

>in America, you can apparently drive a Truck of Peace into crowds of people and it's just another Sunday
Huh, I guess that's news to me.

If I didn't go to prison I would pick humans instead of animals too.

moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/2124209446

Judge this, Sup Forums

Can this car do a multilane drifting?