What should the self-driving cars do?

What should the self-driving cars do?

Other urls found in this thread:

cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Slam the breaks on. sound the horn, and let the cunts get out of the road, they're meant for cars, not crowds of idiots.

Fucking jay-walkers.

Memes

break.

or go through the gap right there

explode
self-driving cars should never be allowed on the streets, it's one of the worst ideas ever

Those are black people lol

>break

Accelerate

Follow traffic laws

Drive through the crowd while hitting as many of the idiots on the road as possible.

>implying that the average drunk Joe drives better and it's less dangerous than a computer

swerve into bystander, then swerve again to hit the crowd
leave no witnesses

The car should move to the left, since it is more likely to keep the driver alive. Driving through an entire crowd of people is a LOT of damage and force.

If there were a cement barrier to the left, it should hit the crowd.

Should make the one guy on the side white and repost this for lulz

they mean take a break obviously.

as for OP, this is retarded bikeshedding. this is the same sort of dilemma that you would pose to a human. it almost doesn't belong on Sup Forums, except saying that will trigger all the autistic fucking faggots who need Sup Forums as a place to socialize.

a real ethical dilemma for self driving cars is whether to let a drunk guy be the only passenger in one of these cars. what if he tries to override the system? what if he's drunk, but right that the car should be stopping? should a self driving car just not function unless there's a driver in the car?

After ww3 most of the worlds city centres will be raised anyway so just properly build mass transit and get people to walk/ride short distances.

There are cars going on the opposed direction on right side (duh)
Also you don't have enough time to break, can't see there only two option on the pic?
It would be dilemma if you could came with your own alternative.

Bottom line the question is should the car kill one or few "innocent" to save many "guilty"?

>implying that the average drunk joe is allowed to drive in the streets

>After ww3
opinion discarded

uhh swerve the other direction where there's no people ??

The car should be able to detect the crowd of people ahead way before you're anywhere close to them and slow down appropriately.

Why the fuck is the car speeding in a pedestrian area

you think world peace is more likely than a third world war given an infinite timeline?

I wish I were an optimist like you

Do a 360 and drive away.

You have never driven a car, haven't you?

isn't this the whole point of self driving cars? to let the cars handle the driving even if we're asleep or drunk or whatever?

if i have to be sober, awake, and paying attention to the road, then what good are self driving cars? until *every* car is autonomous, the flow of traffic can't benefit from automation (as long as there are holdouts driving manually, we definitely won't be able to have cars travel at 100+MPH within a foot or two of one another, because those holdouts will fuck that up and cause accidents)

Why not do a 720 and create a tornado which would push everyone of the road?

i think that your planning for a post-WWIII era makes you about as reliable a predictor of the future as nostradamus.

>mow down the guy on the sidewalk minding his business or the group of hostile protesters blocking the road
hmm

What should a car driven by a mouth breathing retard do? It's the same answer, it's a dumb hypothetical question that can't be answered correctly, the driver/computer will do the best with the data it has, I would trust a computer to make a damage control decision more than I trust the average driver.

Stay.
Car should obey the law, which means stay on the fucking lane.
How many times are you going to repost this shit thread?

Fuck you nigger

Speed racer hop over the people

I don't think it has any business making damage control decisions. It should follow the local security code. If the pedestrians don't it's their fucking fault.

so you let shitty indian programmers implement algorithms to decide who should live or die ?
or sjw and trannys ? i'm sure they'll make "design decisions" killing the average white male because he's "privileged"

code and programmers are getting worse and worse every day, do you really trust those idiots enough to actually pull that shit off ?

I can't tell if half this thread is trying to be ironic but can't come up with a creative post or if genuinely retarded and thinks that they're being clever by saying the car should break / swerve.

>group of hostile protesters blocking the road
or they're just pedestrians crossing the street and the car's brakes have suddenly stopped working properly.

i objected to these stupid thought experiments because they're fundamentally the same as any non-AI problem (this question would be the same if you were driving it yourself), but your objections are stupid. stop raising stupid objections. raise good ones.

Why the hell are a bunch of people suddenly crossing the street of a main road

you sound like one of those thin-skinned conspiracy theorists who's going to have an emotional meltdown when i point out that you folks get triggered more often than SJWs and trannies.

A protest, for instance

Yeah I don't disagree with that sentiment frankly, but in a more ambiguous scenario I would stand by what I said.

black lives matter, get out the car whiteboy

maybe they're crossing the street. or maybe you're approaching a T intersection and they're just on the sidewalk and you can't take a hard left or right turn safely given the speed.

asking these questions makes you look retarded. like when someone asks you for advice and you get hung up on all the autistic little nitpicky details.

There is a Snorlax on the other side

Are they gonna remember my name too?

It should kill as much as possible niggers. So stay and accelerate.

googl hire me pls

Then the car has the right of way if the light is green.

Stand on a busy street like a dumbass you get hit

In a city driving situation, where people do routinely step off the curb, it's rare for a vehicle to ever build up enough speed it couldn't just stop in time.

The only time you go too fast to just stop is the freeway, and anyone standing out on that is basically asking to die.

Who gives a fuck.
What would normal driver do in such case?
What difference does it make if the computer steers the car?

Just run over these retards. You have to make sure the lane is clear if you want to cross it. If you're retarded enough to just go jump on the street in front of the car you deserve to be hit, and then sentenced to jail for attempting murder of the driver.

A car shouldn't be speeding at any turn unless you want to flip your car

nah, i just don't want someone elses code decide how much my life is worth

turn the other way onto incoming traffic

pedestrians always have right of way, just actually being a pedestrian acting like that is a good way to get killed.

the exception and relevant example for the guy who mentioned protestors is that in some places you are allowed to run down people intentionally blocking your path if your safety is threatened

Be ten steps ahead and not even get into situations like this anyway. Which is what they are being programmed to do. So this entire debate is utterly irrelevant. So you pseudo-technologists and wannabe philosophers can stop making these dumb shitty threads now because none of you know what you're talking about.

>we definitely won't be able to have cars travel at 100+MPH within a foot or two of one another
There's absolutely no need for this. We could have 100+MPH speed limits today if we taught people how to fucking drive and maintain following distance.

Thankfully this kind of algorithms are developed by true scientists and engineers, not your average Windows programmer.

Fear the upcoming cheap autonomous cars, though. Most of them will be just a bunch of cameras glued together and an algorithm copied from Stack Overflow.

this is exactly why the OP's dilemma is bikeshedding. it's the kind of moral dilemma that someone who doesn't have anything to contribute to the AI discussion would pose to try to seem helpful.

this isn't an AI dilemma. a human would have the same moral equivocations. the fact that we can answer this question so readily is due largely to the fact that this is basically a straight up ethics question. it's exactly the sort of shit we think about all the time.

the real trouble is when you take advantage of self driving cars, letting them drive autonomously, and you start asking what to do in situations that could only exist there. like if an autonomous vehicle is driving kids to school and something bad happens. or the drunk passenger example. those are the kinds of situations that shouldn't be possible except thanks to self driving cars. and yet nobody seems to want to engage with these problems, because the answers aren't satisfying. either:

A) self driving cars should never be able to activate unless someone acts as the "driver" (a sober, conscious adult). totally nullifies all of the advantages of self driving cars; or
B) these cars should ignore everything the passengers say (potentially killing them despite them knowing how to save themselves); or
C) these cars should accept input from a drunk guy or from kids when they try to force the car to stop.

>if we taught people how to fucking drive and maintain following distance.
literally that's the whole crux of the problem.

Drive into the sea

Saying it should brake is literally the opposite of clever. It's the most obvious choice that I'm sure most people can't understand why OP is even asking.

it's not about the algorithm but the implementation. i'll probably trust them if every piece of software and hardware would be open source and i can actually check it, but otherwise, no fucking way

Well, it'll never be solved because law enforcement is too busy pulling people for going 2MPH over the limit instead of actually dangerous infractions like following too closely, not performing safe lane changes, or operating their vehicle in an unsafe manner.

>if we taught people how to fucking drive and maintain following distance.
Actually we already do that, mr. quads checkersson. It's just that people are self-centered idiots who only see the other cars in traffic as frustrating obstacles. Then all the rules just fade away from people's minds. This wouldn't happen with 100% objectively thinking robot drivers, they don't get emotional.

well we're all very interested to hear your opinion on this subject so thanks for letting us know.

this. the "just brake hurr" response is like responding to the trolley problem with "durr stop the trolley". the dilemma is that you can't. if you guys are too stupid to deal with a thought experiment like this, then just don't post. you don't need to post in every thread that interests you. you can just lurk.

Stop in their tracks. Problem solved. This is an advanced automobile, not a train.

Brake, hard.

>Actually we already do that, mr. quads checkersson.
We do not and enforcement of traffic regulations is incredibly poor.

>the dilemma is that you can't.
Why is this the dilemma? Do robot cars not have brakes?

I don't think cars should ever steer off the road. There might be something that the sensors aren't picking up like a huge hole in the ground from roadwork. People should be taught to think that as well. If you know for a fact that there's no human driving the vehicle and it has been programmed to never leave the road, you can pretty easily assume where it will go and adjust your location accordingly. Don't jump in the middle of the road if you even see a car, this is easy enough to understand even for preschoolers.

Protect its owner at all costs.

Buying a car that would potentially choose to kill you is the ultimate sign of a cuckold.

If your company is staffed by a bunch of nu-male cucks who think killing the customer is ever an option, I will buy from a different company.

The matter is not up for discussion nor will it ever be up for discussion in the real world outside of cucked college student circles.

i drive 10-15mph over the speed limit on the highways and 5-10 over on city streets and i haven't been pulled over, let alone ticketed, in like 5 years. stop being melodramatic.

our problem is, as said, that people are shitty at executing on their training. bicyclists have literally had to resort to using a pool noodle to help drivers keep 1 meter away.

and i haven't even touched on the self centered idiot problem that he brought up (although that's true too. i was stuck on a highway because someone just ahead of me had a pretty major accident, and after all of us pulled over to the side like half a dozen fucking nignogs tried to fill in that space we made when we pulled over. then they all had to pack in to the side so a fire truck could come through on the side we opened up, and then another bunch of nignogs filled that space again. so now when an ambulance tried to get through it was all but impossible. and then MORE NIGNOGS. and then another fucking ambulance. this happened like 3 more times (fire trucks, tow trucks, etc...) before all the vehicles that responded could finally get on the scene. people are such selfish, fucktard drivers that it's just mind boggling)

anyway, as long as more than 5% of the road has human drivers, autonomous vehicles won't be able to safely go up to higher speeds or take on smaller tolerances. and they'll continue to need a human supervisor. so you won't be able to browse Sup Forums or whatever you want to do.

Terrible photoshop but you get the idea

If the multitude is walking over a part of the road that's not meant to be walked on then the car should just run over them.

they are all black so i go for the strike down the middle.

What is there for you to check?
They use ML algorithms. There's no way you can simulate the "learning" process that a machine goes through.

Here's your (You).

Go back to Sup Forums.

you'll kill the one on the right...

These situations are retarded. A self driving car would be driving appropriate to the conditions so it would have time to stop without swerving. You should never be travelling 100mph and have a crowd of people appear in front of you out of no where.

If it 100% comes down to it, the car should hit the group of people, because it should be hitting the brakes attempting to stop before that happens. You never swerve off the road to avoid an accident like that

He's right though

>Why is this the dilemma? Do robot cars not have brakes?
honestly you need to read the thread.

pedestrians can't necessarily look at a car several hundred feet away going 40 or 50mph and tell that it's being driven autonomously. maybe it has all the gear but the human in the car is actually driving it.

and i'm pretty sure that traffic laws say it's fine to go off the road if it's the only way to avoid hitting pedestrians on the street.

and as for someone earlier who said that you can hit pedestrians on the street — in CA law even if someone jay walks, there are circumstances in which the driver would be at fault for hitting a pedestrian. obviously if he just jumps out at you, you're fine, but there's a handful of (frankly, common sense) circumstances where if you ran someone down you could be at fault. so it's not necessarily as easy as "feel free to mow down all those idiots in the road".

It's so blatantly obvious how shitty this board is, nobody on here does any OC at all.

>What should the self-driving cars do?

Wonderful anecdotes, but they're irrelevant. Poor enforcement has lead to people thinking they can do whatever they want. Cops are more interested in sitting on the side of the road to catch speeders than driving through traffic looking for moving violations and non-compliant vehicles.

oh and I'll also add, because I know the first comment will be "what if its icy", if the car doesnt have the traction to stop it wont have the traction to swerve at the last minute, and will still hit the group of people. But my original point still stands, it should be driving to the conditions not the speed limit.

this is literally not one of the outcomes specified. the two options presented are to go off road and hit someone on the sidewalk or to continue going forward and hit a bunch of people on the street.

although i'm learning quickly that the people that use "cuckold" in real everyday language are probably retarded.

>honestly you need to read the thread.
No, I don't think I do. No one has explained why braking is impossible.

>trusting the google/botnet to not run over freedom warriors a.k.a. GNU/Linux users

speeding is a moving violation. and dismissing my anecdotes as wonderful but irrelevant is idiotic. or if you insist that they're not, then "wonderful anecdotes about being pulled over going 2MPH over the speed limit, but they're irrelevant in part because you haven't even claimed that this has happened, whereas at least i've made such a claim"

First smart person in the thread
Do you get off on thinking about scenarios completely out of touch with reality? Is that why you're trying so hard to salvage this thread/

see you need to read the thread, buddy! try real hard next time!

So why should a dude on the sidewalk be killed because a load of cunts decide to walk across when they don't have right-of-way?

Oh, oh wait. They're not allowed? This changes everything! Surely they will refrain from driving then! Surely this will prevent nearly one third of traffic-related deaths to be caused by average drunk joes!

cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
What do you mean, it doesn't?!

are you actually retarded or just "acting"?

sometimes bad things happen to good people, anonymous.

i can't believe i'm the first person in your life to tell you this, but there it is.

One is less than many

Yes, I know speeding is a moving violation, but since I explicitly mentioned speeding and wanted to exclude speeding from the rest of the moving violations, I thought you'd understand. Obviously my original statement was hyperbole. Cops are interested in pulling people over for speeding, not things that are actually unsafe. That's why they sit on the side of the road instead of driving with traffic.

What's up with this "CARS MUST OBEY THE LAW AND EVERYTHING ELSE BE DAMMED" retardation I keep seeing?

Is it really justifiable to pick the sure death many people ('innocent' of breaking traffic law or not) over the potential death of one person ... For the sake of a law whose normal fine is like, $500?

It just seems super autistic.

What if you had 500 people all jaywalking across the road (a protest or march or whatever), and you're driving your car. Would you rather plow through them all rather than illegally swerving into an empty lane - because they're breaking the law? Only on Sup Forums ...

This

Doesn't apply here. You walk across the road when a car is coming, you die. Don't care how many of you there are. Cross at a designated area.

The people who obey the rules live, those who don't have their lives in their hands.

Do you object to the Trolley problem because it seems irrational that people would ever let themselves be tied up and placed on railroad tracks?

The day self driving cars start hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is the day I start slitting all their tires.