To all the "muh self-propelled vehicles techwank"-fags.
Here's a dilemma.
>be 1930
>be me, buy an electric self-propelled carriage for $200 without a horse, fully automobile
>driving down the street
>suddenly:
>a child runs into the street in front of me
>I have to decide :
A. Continue forwards, 90% child dies, 100% passenger lives, 100% bystanders live.
B. Veer to the right into the car beside you, 0% child dies, 40% chance of you dying, 30% chance of the passengers of the other car dying
C. Veer to the left into the fence/lamppost, 100% chance child lives, 100% chance bystanders live, 10% chance you survive.
>I have to decide optimal outcome, let's say I decided option B as it gives the average highest survival odds for everybody.
Here's the dilemma:
Shouldn't a vehicle I purchase be built to protect the buyer/passenger only, putting the passengers' safety above others as the vehicle is the passengers' property?
Or should I instead choose to optimize survival rates for everybody including those outside of the vehicle while risking my own life?
We aren't ready for self-propelled vehicles, stop shilling them.
Self-Propelled Dilemma : We aren't ready
Other urls found in this thread:
do you think this thought you've had is original, dipshit? do you think this isn't already beibg heavily debated everywhere?
what unique perspective did you add to the conversation with your post?
Self-driving cars should always NOT protect the driver/riders, so that this botnet self-driving meme would not propagate like a disease.
Is the self-driving car deciding which way to take? Or perhaps it is some glow-in-the-dark CIA niggers? Or hackers from the other side of earth?
Self driving cars should act like drivers with very very good reflexes
If I see someone jump in front of me, I break
If the cars sees someone jump in front of it, it should break
That simple
kill the people to poor to afford a self driving car. they're likely taking more tax than they're paying and contributing nothing to society
How many times have you broken yourself user?
>None of you even fucking read the op
Fucking seriously?
Many
You fail to realize that if a child runs out in front of your horse it might get spooked, rear, bolt, cause damage to your carriage, property and possibly injure you or others.
Basically, you being in control and being able to make rational decisions is a massive plus.
>muh moral dillemma
Why the fuck not make it configurable? Let the actual driver decide whether he's selfish enough to chop through 20 kids on the street instead of crashing his own car, or if he's selfless enough to kill his entire family instead of driving over a pigeon on the street.
unlike you the car would always drive under the speed limit so it would have time to stop
if it did not have time to stop it should try to avoid the child but if it can't then it's the parents fault as the child shout not be there
accidents happen, people die, there is an infinite supply, get over it
It's the child's fault for running out into the street like that. Or the child's parent's for letting him, if he's too young.
Not to say that you should just accelerate and run him over ancap-style, of course. But I think 's solution is good. Personally I would choose whatever minimises damage to other people (whether the child, or nearby pedestrians, etc.) while guaranteeing lack of permanent injuries to me and without caring about damage to the car.
STAY, hit brakes
STAY, hit brakes
STAY, hit brakes
Nobody will EVER buy or use autonomous car that doesn't prioritize owner's/passenger's safety over some retarded pleb that crosses street illegally.
>step on the break
No? Then
>shift into reverse and floor it
No? Then
>Preform a horizontal drift with the anti-flip mechanism on
Can't turn? Then
Hit the child as the owner of the car payed for the car and it's better to retain that customer and ensure other customers don't fucking die.
Accelerate towards the child.
If the automated vehicle does anything but attempt self-preservation, you're breaking economic principles and you've allowed a computer to start making choices about the value of human life
The owner get arrested and jailed for negligence, so there is no customer retention anyway.
Either just let the human select what the car should do in different scenarios, so the choice is ultimately made by the owner like it would be with a normal car, or just program it to slam the brakes if avoiding the accident without risk is not possible.
Of course the car should pritect the passenger. What kind of a dilemma is this?
Why the fuck should I buy a car that would sacrifice the passenger's life?
The people who act like this is some deep philisophic question are retards and they are paving the way for a debate if a white life is worth less than a non white life.
also if the car driving according to rules with better feflexes than any human driver can't save the child you can bet that an average driver who drives 80% of the time above the speed limit could not save it either
I won't loose any sleep over it, actually delaying self driving cars by a day would be more disastrous since they're probably more safe
He didn't drive the car. He was a passenger. You're really are just grabbing at everything you can with no regard to common sense here. He could not be charged with negligence as he was not at the wheel.
These aren't even real dilemmas, because their solution depends on unknown information. For example, if a bunch of people decided to cross the road even though they weren't supposed to, the passengers obviously shouldn't be sacrificed to save them. On the other hand, if they have a legitimate reason to be there, then the solution isn't that clear, it's up to you to decide who dies. Of course, a car's AI couldn't possibly tell why the people are on the road with reasonable accuracy with current or near-future tech.
This is a completely moot point.
Assuming the car isn't breaking any law, if there's someone in its way it's their mistake, so it's obvious that if there must be a victim, is the one who committed the mistake, as it would be completely stupid to kill the innocent passenger just because some dipshit decided to not look both ways.
Not to mention those who would purposely jump in front of a car to cause an accident.
It's the same story for all automated machinery.
My city has an automated subway train with no conductor. Should they install a mechanism to derail the train if someone is detected on the rails and their number is higher than the passengers?
If I'm flying a plane with autopilot and some jackass with a paramotor gets in my way, should the plane selfdestruct to save the guy who put himself in that situation?
If I'm operating some machine in a factory, and the bosses retarded son gets dangerously close, in a way that if it doesn't move towards myself (and certainly killing me) he'll die.
Should the machine be programmed to kill its operator to save the child who did the mistake of putting himself in a dangerous situation?
I think it'd be stupid and injust to kill someone who did nothing wrong, just to save someone who did.
It's the same as the trolley problem. If there are four assholes on the rail, why should I kill one innocent guy to save them?
Just because he's in a point where it's easy to exchange his life for that of the four others?
Or why throw the innocent fat guy from the bridge to save them?
At this point, why don't we just select one random guy and gut him of all his organs to save a bunch of people?
We'd save more people than we'd kill, right?
>He didn't drive the car. He was a passenger. You're really are just grabbing at everything you can with no regard to common sense here. He could not be charged with negligence as he was not at the wheel.
Wrong. The main passenger at the wheel is still responsible to react appropriately during an emergency.
Regarding:
>Shouldn't a vehicle I purchase be built to protect the buyer/passenger only, putting the passengers' safety above others as the vehicle is the passengers' property?
The state should be the one to regulate self-driving vehicles by demanding at least a certain degree of respect for the non-passengers. Then, the software would be still optimizing for the benefit of the passengers, BUT only within those limitations. If the software disregards those limitations, then ideally it would never pass quality control and would never even leave production.
They will be built to minimize all damage possible, but the first and foremost priority will be the passenger.
No one will buy a car that will kill you on its own.
Consider the following: there's no wheel.
Steering wheel not wheels you retard, all automatic vehicles must have a manual failsafe.
God is this facebook? Everyone is ignoring the fact that who is causing the potential accident could have no fault at all. For example:
>pedestrian street light stops working/works in reverse/gets hacked
>large group of people crosses the street seeing the green light, but your car sees it too
Or
>fire/accident/terroristic attack causes people to run in panick and get on the street
And i could go on and on
Now of course you could find someone who's at fault for everything, but it's not the people who you are so easily deciding to run over. You can still decide to run them over, but consider that it's not such an obvious choice for everyone
That's what I'm saying, there's no steering wheel.
>all automatic vehicles must have a manual failsafe
For now.
There's no reason not to build cars that do less damage to people that you hit, it won't make you less likely to survive. Giving cars better bumpers and the like to soften the blow when you do fuck up won't suddenly make you hit the steering wheel harder.
The only manual failsafe that makes sense is a brake.
depends if they were jaywalking
>It's the same as the trolley problem. If there are four assholes on the rail, why should I kill one innocent guy to save them?
>Just because he's in a point where it's easy to exchange his life for that of the four others?
>Or why throw the innocent fat guy from the bridge to save them?
Ok, that's a pretty fucking good perspective and I can't believe I never even thought of it that way before. Thanks user.
The car would have no way of knowing why these people are trespassing on the street. All it knows is traffic laws, and according to them these are jaywalkers and it's gonna treat them as such.
>No steering wheel
This would not happen, because it would put too much responsibility onto the car manufacturer, and that it would not be considered safe by authorities since you lose control of all manual steering(Which is a major problem on non-conventional roads such as mudroads. The car have to be compatible with those too.). You are not driving a train.
>Self driving car prioritises pedestrians over driver
>Walk out in front of car
>Kill driver
>Do it again and again every day
Hitting jaywalkers with your car is still a crime.
Only if you were speeding or something, otherwise it's their fault for getting hit.
And what makes you think a self-driving car would not be able to drive over mudroads better than humans?
>as such
Elaborate please
>not modding your self driving car so it always protects you the driver
>pedestrian street light stops working/works in reverse/gets hacked
And what does a self-driving vehicle change in this situation?
>large group of people crosses the street seeing the green light, but your car sees it too
A car that can't tell the difference between pedestrian and traffic lights shouldn't be on the road. Same goes for such pedestrians.
>fire/accident/terroristic attack causes people to run in panick and get on the street
And what does a self-driving vehicle change in this situation?
It should stop in all those situations before hitting pedestrians.
Ideally it's supposed to be better than a human at recognizing people at a distance.
I mean ofcourse theyd drive over mudroads better than they drive over humans, but that's only because they are made to avoid driving over humans. All it takes is one virus and that incentive is deleted.
Hitting jaywalkers is not a crime, nor is it even ethically wrong, if you can prove:
Your car is well maintained, especially tires and brakes.
You were obeying the speed limits.
You were paying attention while driving and hit the brakes to the best of your ability when the obstruction presented itself.
These are things a self driving car can do better than any human.
Swerving is considered to be an unsafe action.
Are you dense? That user was asking why you think a car wouldn't be able to drive itself over mudroads better than a human would be able to drive it over mudroads.
The car will obey the traffic laws, that's all it needs to do.
If there are pedestrians throwing themselves on the front of the car, the car will try to stop and if it can't make it in time the pedestrian will get hit. It is not the car fault.
I think he knows and was trying to be a cheeky cunt.
>self-propelled vehicles
All vehicles are self-propelled.
>You were paying attention while driving and hit the brakes to the best of your ability when the obstruction presented itself.
This is key, and seems to be ignored by everyone itt.
We're not suggesting you should carry on without breaking, or accelerate towards the pedestrian, because "lol jaywalker gets what he deserves". Rather, any death should be avoided as far as possible (I'd even say that because you should have insurance, if you can ensure zero deaths or severe injuries at the cost of severe damage to the car that would be the correct course of action). But if a death is unavoidable, consider who should die: the driver who was obeying every traffic law and driving perfectly safely and legally? Or the moron who jumped out into the middle of traffic, of his own volition? If a car is self-driving, that doesn't change this equation.
...
>And what does a self-driving vehicle change in this situation?
Nothing? I think you are missing my point, which simply was: you are considering a narrow group of situations, and what to do in general is not so obvious
>A car that can't tell the difference between pedestrian and traffic lights shouldn't be on the road.
What i said doesn't imply that. The green light could turn on when the car is too close/fast to have sufficient space for stopping, and the pedestrian would start crossing the street
>Same goes for such pedestrians
What?
Is a sailboat self-propelled? Or a horse carriage?
Fair enough.
That's not what i asked. I asked how the traffic laws tells you to treat jaywalkers
You're right though, in that all cars are self-propelled. Literally everyone itt is ignoring this.
A self-driving car to reasonable standards today can rely on traffic signals, GPS, cameras(visible/IR/heat etc) to detect and abide by road markings. They are certainly not emulating human mind.
Mudroads are largely irregular, have no road markings and can contain sections which look like paths when in fact it's not, such as in swampy areas. Such roads are extremely hard for cars to self-drive on without human intervention/emulation. Even with a more advanced AI, there would be safety regulations to mandate the presence of a steering wheel in case the AI could not read the road properly. (Note: In case.) That is of course provided the more advanced AI is even stored locally on to the car in the first place, instead of the car connecting to the cloud to a centralized AI. Even automatically driven trains have a control panel in case something went wrong.
The 'smart' cars/buses that lacks a steering wheel nowdays always have a predefined path that is simply executed by the OS. They simply brake whenever they detect a potential obstacle. No worries about turning this or that, up, down or 720 degrees diagonally.
>another one of these retarded threads
Both are fine because a:cars are so safe, you can spam into a brick wall doing 50 and be just fine or b: almost all cars these days have automatic breaking if it detects something in front of it youtu.be
I hate these threads because no matter the answer people pick, the ai will always be at fault, thinking a human could do better
>self-driving car is equipped with a fuckload of sensors
>car can "see" farther ahead than you
>car notices child running toward street
>car is already reacting before you see kid
>car is already using safe driving practices
>car slows down, maybe swerves a bit
>everybodyisokay.jpg
>optional: exterior airbags
This is what happens when you think on a human scale. Also this business about who's at fault in an accident is ridiculous, nothing will change there either.
This is it, it's not the president of the united states jay-walking down the interstate using a blindfold. It's a used up crackhead with a cardboard sign.
The question is "what if the car is in a situation where it can't dodge fast enough"?
But in those cases, the saiyan running against the car totally deserves it.
It doesn't require you to place their safety over yours.
Cars today with autonomous breaking can stop in a few feet doing 60, of the car doesn't have enough time to break, then you are breaking the speed limit.
Plus modern ai already scans for threats and is always keeping an eye out for anything and can predict accidents.
Keep asking retarded questions you know nothing about
The car would prevent that situation from happening. Should it occur in a rare case, the car will act like the two ton projectile that it is, it isn't going to sacrifice the passengers.
>optional: exterior airbags
That's fair i guess, but i'd rather have the choice of throwing my car out of the street if that can avoid killing people who are not at fault
>break
whoever owns the vehicle should have the highest survival chance. everything else is communism.
Collectivism, not communism.
same difference
There is this thing called brakes, you know?
Why not just prioritize the improvement of a proper instant energy-absorbing brake system.
And why also not improve the speed vs distance prevention rate with a proper system?
Said dilemma isn't such. If you ever get to avoid ir in any case, what ever results in the dilemma's scenario becomes just an accident, and accidents are just something out of control.
So why not just manage to not have accidents at all?
They should have protester identifying technology that looks for gay signs or something and makes it a priority to plow into them.
Collectivism is where a fuckton of retarded systems come from, including communism.
It's like the GNU/Linux of the "system that kills million of people", and Communism is just ubuntu.
what dilema
The image doesn't illustrate well what you are trying to sell, this is just bad propaganda.
Sup Forums is a collection of high-school h4x0r5 or college CS/CIS dropouts. They can't understand terminology because they don't have a job that depends on it.
>what if it can't be prevented
When it can't be prevented axiomatically no human would do better.
But. Guess what. We have laws against speeding. A car would follow that much better than some idiot who doesn't understand the tradeoffs here.
Even if you're in a dangerous car crash the car will break efficiently and get you down to almost certainly non-lethal conditions. The human reaction time is a primary reason we have lethal car crashes because breaks are effective.
Consider more realistic scenarios. Someone doesn't stop at a stop sign. There's someone going down the road at high speed say 90km/h. Sideways collision. Both people face massive torsion of their brain stems and they die instantly.
Consider one had a self driving car. The self driving car turns sideways as it breaks with much more effective reaction time. The sideways turn significantly decreases the vector change in both cars upon impact and the break application might even bring the car down to non-lethal conditions.
Consider both have self driving cars.
Accident wouldn't occur.
The chaos of driving is induced by humans. The worst cases we will have are pedestrians. And at legal limits where you face pedestrians full application of ABS breaks nullifies just about any accidents.
I wager we put up fences around the roads in these areas too. Humans are terrible. Don't trust them.
...
Yeah because people aren't pedantic about OPs wording when his intent is clear that makes people stupid.
Go crash a car will you?
Did any of you retards actually read the full OP? He uses the term "self propelled" which fits in with his edit of yesterday's self driving dilemma thread. He's trying to discredit the argument by falsely equivocating it to the difference between horse drawn carts and automobiles
Not everyone is here 24/7.
How could we know that without proper context?
...
a proper self driving car, would detect all those scenarios before crash occurs
So none of those scenarios really matters.
If the car is only partially self-driving, then only thing it should do is hit the brakes (as the cars do).
So there isnt a problem
Yeah and I saw that post yesterday. Why do you care? We wanted a self-driving car discussion clearly. Is anyone here arguing that self-propelled vehicles is a major problem?
Just fuck off you idiot.
There's an important point missing itt:
If we are sure that less people die in car accidents every year, as in, a reduction in every age group/other demographic group. Less drivers killed AND less pedestrians killed.
Do we care?
If the self driving vehicle guarantees that less people will die overall, why is it so important how it does this?
We're making things safer - a lot safer - for everyone, the safety increase for 'your group' (driver/pedestrian/whatever) may less than for the others, but it's sill positive
> we are not ready
No, we are overconfident that WE will make rational decisions in the stated dilemmas while there is no indication whatsoever that people act rationally in cases like this. We don't want to let go the power to make such decisions while research shows we're structurally bad at them.
You're the ones claiming his use of "self propelled" is wrong, even though it's correct. An automobile is self propelled, a "horse-drawn" cart is not. Fuck off b2r if you're too lazy to read a simple post.
If you didn't know about the previous post, you'd just think it was just OP being retarded or shitposting.
You certainly wouldn't think of it as a reference to another thread.
You don't need to know about the previous post. His edit is completely self contained and "self propelled" works within the edit
It's also pretty fucking easy to guess what he's getting at just from the context of the post and the image
>the car would always drive under the speed limit
For this reason alone it would never catch on.
Maybe I'm retarded, but to me OP's post, assuming no other context, looks like just the regular nonsense shitposting with a nonworking analogy, so I just thought he was talking about the dilemma of who to kill in those situation, and didn't think he was making fun of something.
You are just pointlessly arguing ousia here. A horse-drawn cart can be considered self-propelled if you see the horse+carriage as a single system, instead of 2 different systems. Similarly, I can argue that the car frame+seats etc are separate systems from the engine itself, and as a result a car is not self-propelled.
You wouldn't be so autistically over-analysing things like a redditor if you had just used some common sense and realised that he was making a play on the "self driving" cars dilemma
It will catch on when you use the GPS to catch speeders.
It'll be location anonymous data naturally. Just measuring when you left a city and arrived at another. Fining you for breaking the speed limits on at least one of the roads there.
>they can't force me to have a GPS
Do you think people will do without smartphones? Especially normal people.
My shit detectors went off but there are so many people here that need helmets just to use an iPhone I assumed OP was one of them. I wasn't here for yesterday's thread.
10/10 OP, got me hook, line, and sinker.
Speed limits are irrelevant anyway. They can be high as you want, you'll still have traffic, and you'll still have retards cut you off and cause a chain reaction. Self-driving cars cooperating at a lower speed limit would still be faster than a bunch of hairless monkeys at a higher limit.
I never argued against OP. There was nothing wrong with OP's post. I only argued against the guy who outright said a car is self-propelled and a horsewagon is not.
Hit the brakes
>pedestrian street light stops working/works in reverse/gets hacked
>Stops working
Happens every day in my country, at 8oclock lights at pedestrian crosses stop and pedestrians get automatic priority, it should do the same if there were no lights.
>Work in reverse
What?
>Get hacked
This isn't die hard kid, you can't hack street lights, they operate independently under with a computer under sealed enclosure. It's easier to pull out the light from the ground with bare hands than get into it's controller
>self driving car
>putting itself in a situation where it has a chance to hit anyone
Self driving cars would drive at a speed in which it can brake in time to avoid anything. It should sense the pedestrian way before it becomes a danger, and it should be able to stop itself in time.