Choose wisely

Choose wisely

Other urls found in this thread:

moralmachine.mit.edu/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It should brake.
But, if it had to happen, run the humans over. Better chance for them to survive than the dogs from what I'd assume.

obviously kill the dogs.

how is this dilemma different from being at the wheel deciding this shit? the real hard questions are so much less retarded, too. like if you have self driving cars, do they let a drunk person get a ride home? should it lock him out from the override functions? what if he sobers up and tries to prevent the car from crashing into a truck or something? what about kids? should a car drive 5 kids to school without an adult in the car? same truck-accident issue as before; what if one of them tries to stop the car? how should it differentiate a drunk man from a rambunctious child from a man who's now sober and trying to prevent his own death or a child who's trying to do the same?

these all involve the AI making a decision that wouldn't have to be made otherwise, that require us to tell the AI to do something that will lead to some people dying either way.

The people have the right of way, why the fuck would you run them over?

Please tell me the dogs are the right answer.
I don't need any more rage-inducing shit tonight.

moralmachine.mit.edu/
post the link next time you asswipe
i remember doing this a while back
>kill anything that doesn't obey street signs
>kill bums/criminals
everything else is fair game.

I hate to be that guy but it should kill the dogs obviously.. dudes, it sucks but you know..

1) humans have poor instincts. i could trust a dog to run out of the way; humans get all "deer in the headlights" on you (if you want proof, go to /n/ and ask cyclists if pedestrians are skittish and unpredictable when crossing the street)

2) humans are more litigious than dogs. paralyzing a human will cost you a fortune. paralyzing a dog will cost you a few hundred bucks. less if you have a shovel.

>red dogs
>red sign

>red humans
>green sign

Therefore the obvious answer is to run the humans over for walking when it's green.

do a 90 degress turn and stop

...

I've been thinking about this. The car will count people as equal regardless of age,sex,race,etc. except kids like under 5". Maybe they count as 1.5 peoples etc.
Then you count the people inside the car v people outside the car. If the people outside is equal to inside the car, run into them. If its less run into them but if its more you have to change direction and maybe go off a cliff or something.

Why do the scenarios involcing the car crashing mean that the people in the car die? In what world would a car moving so fast by the time it gets to a streetlight that the only way to save passersby is to kill the occupants?

>Driving at such a speed where you can't stop quickly enough at a pedestrian stopping
Does your country really put pedestrian crossings on 100Kph roads?

From a moral perspective the car should kill the humans because unlike humans dogs have no concept of evil and therefore cannot be evil. The humans might of course not be evil but they do still have the potential.

Apparently the scenario includes a brake failure. This doesn't make sense, however, because you should never be at such a speed that people will die when you're in an area with stoplights anyways.

When you are driving, you are kinda in a big social contract with everyone else on the road agreeing on several things like not hitting each other, giving the right of way, etc. In an all automated car scenario accidents are less likely to happen but in the current environment you could be minding your business on the highway and someone does a cheeky lane change, your cars shits bricks and bam ur dead.

why are you driving on the wrong side of the road?clearly by the traffic light you are going the wrong way

JUST BRAKE.
These moral quizzes are so fucking stupid.
They react much faster than a human would, why wouldn't they just break?
A human would probably swerve and cause a rollover, killing passengers and the people he's trying to avoid.

The fucking car should not have to choose which life is most important. It just fucking break, continue in straight line and roll over the retard that thought it was a great idea to cross the road.

The car should not kill the passenger, the car should not go outside of it's track. The car should just follow the road that is a known dangerous area.

You don't ask a train to change track if there is a retard on it.

As these situations are rare, it should hit breaks and hit itself into a that thing sideways to cause friction and stop it.
Car manufacturers and insurances pay for repairs.

>From a moral perspective the car should kill the humans because unlike humans dogs have no concept of evil and therefore cannot be evil.
maybe that's a philosophical perspective, but that's an incredibly naive philosophical perspective. humans have a capacity to imagine good and evil, making their lives worth more than a dog's. that may not be the case for you, in which case maybe a car would randomly choose between killing you and a dog, or you and a goldfish.

How exactly is your car shitting bricks in a way that's going to kill you? I suspect the car would just brake at that point.

You are missing the point. Situations like this are bound to happen and we are not going to be in control of the car when they do. The car just needs to know what the rules are when this happens and how to react.

Protecting the passengers is the only correct choice.

The car is empty so it should first brake (if possible) and then crash into the wall instead of risking causing harm to a living being.

>The car should not kill the passenger
Is that an option at times?
Aren't people supposed to want to buy these things?

The device should never actively select an option that is likely to result in injured pedestrians or injured passengers.

When the device has no available actions that will result in zero injuries, it must come to a stop in the most predictable way possible (braking following a straight trajectory), regardless of any available actions that might reduce the number or severity of injuries.

Look at those LA highway accidents and shit. If your car breaks down/stops etc. You have to pretty much get the fuck out or something cuz you're .2seconds away from being rear ended

the thought experiment shouldn't require such nitpicky attention to details, because the whole point is that you have to imagine that you just have found yourself in a scenario where you have to make a decision one way or the other. that demand shouldn't be that hard to accept, because we often find ourselves satisfying constraints that we wouldn't have placed on ourselves if we had the option, especially when driving.

but if you really want to nitpick, you should point out that a self-driving car should be able to diagnose that its brakes are nonfunctional and bring itself to a safe stop way before a dilemma requiring braking presents itself. that's the autistic nitpicky escape hatch, not this "oh you shouldn't be going that fast anyway" bitching (because pedestrians and dogs do retarded shit all the time, like cross abruptly despite not being permitted to).

Give way and slowly stop untill 1.5 meter of persons then fully stopped until all pedestrians are clear of the road and are on the other foot path.

if that's not possible to stop there are steps you can follow other than the image you posted.

other only other way would be to hit the guard rail on the side if there is a striaght rail of the road just rubbing on it beside the friction should stop the car

if not force the car to handbrake or stall or move it into a revease gear and slam on the handbrake and hit the brakes and try to pull over in a safe area
if its not safe brake slowly -25%-45% brake
depending on weather, cars distant, pedestrians walk speed
generally it should try to crash behind the pedriain and toot horn to get attention to move,


even cars at 60kmh are forced to stop.
and given the image is 2.5 meters that plenty of time for the brakes to kick in.

But the best idea is to pull over and stop if you can't physically stop liek pulling into a ditch wilist braking lightly to stop impact damage.

note : none it should just gently stop and give way to people.
given that tracking sensors should detect this anyway this would never happen as the sesors are well beyond stopping distance

and that's how you get governments to ban/restrict auto-cars

A car shouldn't be deciding whose life is more valuable.

It's only duty is to ensure survival of the passengers, and the easiest way to do it is to respect the rules of the road by not swerving and instead braking ASAP.

you would save ugly women over based dogs?
fuck you

Being rear ended probably isn't going to kill you.
Also, your story sounds like bullshit, unless Americans are just inattentive drivers or some shit.

you're not understanding this dilemma. stop posting (or cop to your ignorance and start asking more questions).

don't get upset, either. nobody asks you about medical ethics either.

fuck off neet

if someone runs over your dog, just get another fucking dog, they're a dime a dozen

They should follow all traffic laws to the letter BUT it should prioritize its own passengers in such an event.

>call my car to come pick me up
>your car got totalled on the way because some retard jaywalked
Bright future.

Self driving car should brake. If brakes fail and it is putting innocent civilians who at nothing to do with the decision to purchase that car at risk, the car should self destruct, blow up, killing everybody inside but saving the people who were in the path of its trajectory.

haha lulz epic xD

Here's another one of those some rules we follow some we don't. E.g. following the constructions speed limit at night / evening when there is no construction.

In the context of this quizz, there is a sudden break failure.

The car should just honk the horn desu.

a humans life is always higher value than some stupid mutt on the road

kek are you actively killing fat people?

no way
you're wrong

Nah you're stupid as shit, it should prioritize innocent civilians over passengers in the car. The passengers chose to ride in the car, they should assume the risk.

power slide

full revs

kill them all

Not him, but medical ethics is retarded as "car AI ethics".

You don't put fucking ethics in an AI, it's not it's role.

The fact that you think I'm joking shows how intellectually stunted you are.

neets don't understand this because they're autistic and their mental model of the world is that anything with a heart and a brain is probably equivalent in our society.

just imagine how much autism cripples a person, that people in this thread have to consciously think about whether society thinks humans are more valuable than dogs, and some people in this thread are getting it wrong. this is how severe a disability autism is.

I'd rather run over a murderer than a dog.

>haha i was only pretending to be retarded :D
okay! keep it up!

There is no dilemma.

A self-driving car should never be in traffic if it has bad brakes.
A self-driving car should never be going this fast in city traffic.
And finally, a self-driving car should NEVER prioritize the lives of others over you, the passenger.

But how do you know?

like i said dude, do yourself a favor and stop posting. best case scenario is that we're all going to forget these shitty contributions to the thread you're making. worst case is that you go full retard and later realize that you've been pushing this idiotic shit before the thread has died.

just lurk for a while. or, like i said, feel free to ask questions. there's no fault in being ignorant if you're earnestly asking questions.

>If the car ever malfunctions unexpectedly it fucking kills you
>immediately go under as a company

Back to child

Self driving cars should not be allowed to operate if they endanger civilians who had no say in the purchase. If you want to buy one you should assume the risk, babbys first ethics.

normies and their pets are retarded then. If Im driving and a stupid pet gets in the way it gets thats too bad, its not worth putting my life at risk to swerve.

I remember taking the test a few weeks ago. The results were mostly bogus. The only thing I cared about was upholding the law and avoiding intervention but it said I valued age and gender. If you're retarded enough to walk in front of a car when the light says "DO NOT GO" then you deserve to get hit by that car.

Fuck humans, we're killing this world. With the number of lives that are going to be saved simply by having self driving cars we still need some way to purge off some of the population.

wtf I hate humans now

I would argue with part to ensure safety of passangers. You are the idiot who bought it, you should be responsible, not random innocent civilian or poor dog.
>The car should just honk the horn desu.
You sir have just untied the Gordian knot.

If the car malfunctions unexpectedly it should halt its execution. If it can't do that and it's a choice between killing an innocent random person or somebody who chose to operate the car that day, clearly the person who chose to operate the car needs to bite the bullet. If you don't want to take that responsibility, don't buy a self driving car, simple as that.

Activate self-destruct

The dogs are running a red light
Also, it should brake

The hypothetical situation is a brake failure. It's not like the brake failure was a result of an AI controlling the car. If it was a human driving then chances are they'd hit the pedestrians and probably crash into a wall and kill themselves as well.

keep going straight, everyone is walking to the right, there's a chance they can get out of the way

Brake, don't change lanes. In this case the dogs on pedestrian crossing are not obeying the red light so the car should only brake to avoid collision.

>From a moral perspective the car should kill the humans because unlike humans dogs have no concept of evil and therefore cannot be evil.
The dumbest shit I've read in a while.

Ok, if this is how you think what do you think the car should do if it is possible to stop the car but the pedestrian is not following the rules. does the car still stop or just run over the pedestrian

Protect people in the car.

If that doesn't mean hitting someone who would otherwise not be hit, try and protect people outside, too.

Wow, I'm really impressed by your ability to refute my points. But you should try to be more synthetic in what you say like:

>You're a retard
>lurk more

autism, the post.

imagine the car has sudden brake failure for any number of reasons.
imagine the cross walk hasn't permitted anyone to cross, but pedestrians are retarded and dogs follow people around, hence the dilemma.
i don't even see how the dilemma in the OP's image suggests that the people in the car are at risk, so i don't understand your third bitchy complaint.

every goal that you tell an AI to optimize for is essentially an ethical directive. if you tell a car to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, it might cut across curbs at 120 mph because the only thing the system has optimized for is getting to point B in the shortest time possible. it would categorize humans among shrubs and shit like that.

when you're training an AI you actually have to provide it with these constraints, like saying that hitting a human has a huge cost to your optimization algorithm. things like that. but making that decision - to give humans a value and dogs another value - is itself an ethical decision. you might say you came to the decision on the basis of cost or whatever else, but that's just an ethical school of thought.

if your ethical framework is to do the least harm to the fewest people possible, that's basically just utilitarianism. that's one approach (one of the most famous, and probably most popular, ones) to normative ethics.

It should be able to identify race, then if the race of the people is lesser than Europeans or East Asians, kill the people over the dogs.

what if there are more people outside the car than in the car?

what point did you make?

Get the dogs and then chase after the humans for max score

People who are not following traffic laws do not get the same kind of considerations that people following traffic laws receive.

Don't know the country where you are living, but in my country, there is law about those things. The correct conduct is still to break, nothing else.

Fuck them, then.

ahhah epic meme back to Sup Forums omg lulz~ wryyyyy amirite? XD

this is bullshit
you are one step away from saying if the guy is a registered republican, the car should speed up or something or maybe calculating people's contribution to the country's GDP and compare that way

holy fuck if that was the case you could just eject the wheels off that would give the maximum friction to stop the vehicle and it works better than any brake.

it would fuck the vehicle over big time though but it would save both passenger and pedestrian but it might hurt kids in the vehicle from airbags and the like for like under 6month old babies because they can't move their heads or have control over there muscles at that age.

how does that apply to the OP's image? are there people in that image that are following traffic laws whose lives are in danger?

Realistically, the car should just follow traffic laws to the best of its abilities. If it's no longer able to safely drive, it should stop as safely as possible for the passengers of the car.

then you are saying that if you were driving the car and someone stepped out on the road even though they didn't have the signal to would you run into them or try to avoid them?

Actually the people in the image are following traffic laws and the animals, who probably don't know any better, are not following the law. Roadkill happens and is unpleasant, but it is occasionally unavoidable, as it is in the OP.

Are you assuming I'd bury the dog alive but paralysed? Or bash it with the shovel then bury it?

Stop without injuring the passenger? Sure, do it. No reason to kill people needlessly, but I am for Harambe. If you endanger yourself then you deserve it. A dog is a far lesser drain on society than a person.

What's the point of this post? The OP's illustrated dilemma is asking if your self-driving car should hit the dogs or the humans. Neither party is following the traffic laws in the scenario that we've all imagined so far (although it shouldn't be outside the reach of our imagination that maybe a self-driving car would have a glitch and misread a traffic light for several seconds, or not see the intersection until it's too late, or whatever).

The question is whether you hit 2 dogs or hit 2 humans. This seems like a question that a psychiatrist would ask someone he suspected of some sort of sociopathy. If you guys are struggling with this, you need to get help (and no, not because you're 2 edgy 4 us, but because your brain is dysfunctional).

>insert dog bashing gif here

didn't shoveldog get autobanned at one point?

if you think this. why would the outcome be worse for the pedestrian when the ai is driving

Are you perhaps colorblind?

as has been said several times in this thread, you have to imagine for the scenario that the good options are all gone and the only options you have left are these two bad ones.

have you guys seriously never encountered thought experiments or anything like that before?

If it did, I wasn't here for it.

...

If it can safely stop the vehicle without injuring the passengers or anyone else on the road, then yes. If people walking in front of self driving cars (knowing the car will break for them) becomes a widespread issue then start having the car take photos of the bastards so they can be identified and fined. There needs to be some kind of motivation to follow the rules or no one will follow them. If you break the rule that could potentially kill you, I think a minor privacy violation isn't that big of a deal.

I choose the 3rd option. I choose not to partake in the sociopathic experiment to desensitize the population to murder.

My computer had pretty severe flux settings turned on just now. Turning it off made it clearer that this is even less of a dilemma than it originally appeared (which is not at all). Sorry about that.

>he thinks killing a dog is murder
>he doesn't know what the definition of "murder" is
hahaha jesus christ