Link

>Link
moralmachine.mit.edu/

>Post results

Other urls found in this thread:

moralmachine.mit.edu/hl/en/results/2097168555
cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/
moralmachine.mit.edu/hl/en/results/-552654127
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Self driving cars should not be attempting to make moral choices during an accident. No one makes a moral choice when they are in an accident, they only think of self preservation. The programming on self driving cars should always be to stop the car as safely as possible and if that is not possible the passengers in the car should always be the ones put into danger instead of pedestrians or other motorists.

...

This. Retarded "experiment". Why the fuck would you ever even choose the people CROSSING THE ROAD THROUGH A RED LIGHT OVER THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE?

Why are pedestrians more valuable than passengers?

>they would brake

Because the passengers made the choice to put their life in the hands of a machine, not the pedestrians.

This assume break failure

This is dumb. It would have robotic reactions and have much more choices on any scenario.

Problem with this is that it guarantees outcomes, it guarantees deaths

this

...

Self-preservation is a thing.

why would a robotic car be going fast enough to be unable to stop while approaching a crossing?

>People not voting for the passengers in a case of what the car should do
>People actually caring about the law in a life or death situation
>People caring more about animals than humans
>People caring more about elderly people than young people
>People caring more about unhealthy people than healthy people
>People caring more about criminals than doctors, etc.
What the fuck.

not for machines, sorry bruh

...

Sudden brake failure is the excuse. Shit happens.

moralmachine.mit.edu/hl/en/results/2097168555

Judge me

>faith in humanity restored

but for the fuckers who would buy the car it does

The car should always protect its passengers first because it's in direct service of those. After that it should protect other people. Obviously in the best situation it should try to protect both, but clearly that's not an option here.

This fucking creepy shit is for make cars who would kill based on moral assumptions.

Doctor>Homeless
Baby>Everything
Etc

The fuck kind of moral choice is this?

you should have used a criminal instead

gender?

Healthy with intervention vs unhealthy without intervening.

...

>disregarding Law in life or death situation
>two people ignore the law and put their lives in danger
>one guy abiding the law keeping himself safe
>implying car should swerve and hit the dude who made the right decision

Think of how easily this could be manipulated.
You see a car coming with two passengers.
You and your degenerate buddy jump off the curb, forcing the car to swerve and hit someone who is alone.

So? The people that broke the law will then be prosecuted. The car shouldn't inflict the fucking death penalty just because you were jaywalking.

Man, that actually breaks my rules I was using for these. I had not considered the car being full of animals.

Same, which is why I posted it. I chose to crash the car, even if I think the car should protect the passengers in normal situations. Animals shouldn't get cars anyway.

In these stupid contrived scenarios, someone is going to die.
It should not be the dude minding his own business abiding safety laws.
It should be the two idiots who walked into traffic.

I would agree.

I disagree, it should be the least amount of casualties.

I disagree.
The jaywalkers made their decision to put their lives at risk by stepping into traffic.
The other guy made the correct decision to abide by the law and protect himself.
By swerving and hitting him, you are forcing the ramifications of someone else's mistake onto him.
People should be accountable for their actions.

Furthermore, the decisions of these machines should reinforce our existing assumptions of the road.
I assume when I walk the streets that a car won't jump the curb and hit me. I assume that using the crosswalk and waiting for the signal keeps me safe. I assume that stepping in front of a car is dangerous.
Your proposed system changes those rules. Now I have to consider that abiding the law isn't enough to keep me safe. I no longer want to go on a walk unless I am in a larger group than anyone else around me, because that's the only way to be sure a car won't swerve and kill me.

I will continue to think that a human life is more important than upholding road rules. I'd do the same if I was driving a car, and had to make a choice and was able to make that choice. You're also wrongly assuming that you're safe on a crosswalk, hell you're always at risk if you're walking right next to cars.

> I'd do the same if I was driving a car, and had to make a choice and was able to make that choice.
My choices might be very different than those I would prescribe for an automated system.
If I was driving, I would willingly crash my car and take my life rather than hit someone else, even a jaywalker.
But I don't believe that a self-driving car should make that decision. It should protect its occupants.

To me, it's about expectations.
As the owner of a self-driving car, you expect it will keep you safe first and foremost.
You then expect it will keep those around you safe.

As a pedestrian, you expect that staying on the sidewalk and using the crosswalk keep you safe. You expect that stepping into traffic is dangerous.

At no point do I expect that walking alone should make me more likely to be hit by a car than walking in a pair.

>If I was driving, I would willingly crash my car and take my life rather than hit someone else, even a jaywalker.
wew lad

>As a pedestrian, you expect that staying on the sidewalk and using the crosswalk keep you safe.
That's just wrong though. At any point cars could swerve into you, either deliberately or not.

>healthy vs unhealthy

Are you fucking blind. Both sides have the same body types. The only change is gender

Oh yeah, guess I mistook tits for fat or something. My bad.

the self driving car would stop you fucktard
its a zebra crossing

...

>wew lad
>contributing to the discussion


>That's just wrong though. At any point cars could swerve into you, either deliberately or not.
They could, but that is not the expectation. Our entire traffic system is based on expectations. If we begin to disregard those expectations at a systemic level, things will fall apart, fast.

>They could, but that is not the expectation.
I've said like 3 times that this is wrong though, what more do you want?

...

How? Brakes aren't working.

>I've said like 3 times that this is wrong though
>saying something 3 times makes it true
Well, guess I might as well go walk in the streets, since that is apparently as safe as sticking to the sidewalk.
Hell, if I bring a couple friends, maybe I can trick a car into jumping the curb and running over that loner.
Then, next time I'm driving, I'll use my left turn signal when I'm actually going to turn right, and vice versa.
Or who knows, maybe I'll just start driving on the left side of the road.
It's not like our traffic system is based on expectations. I'll just do whatever I want.
Other than a traffic ticket, I won't be putting anyone at any greater risk than normal, I'm sure.

>>saying something 3 times makes it true
That's not what I'm saying, just that you're ignoring it.
But nice reductio ad absurdum though.

Passengers first if they want me to buy that car.

People in cars stand a better chance of surviving a crash then people outside cars.

I saw a guy plough his sports car into a wall once.
crushed the thing into a cube and demolish the wall. and once they'd cut him out the wreckage he only had a few scratches on him.
but if that wall had been a person they'd have been paste.

Sure, but it's sure the people die if it's indicated as such in these questions. So if you chose to drive into a wall, the passengers would've died.

>wew lad

>calls me out for reductio ad absurdum

Sorry, didn't realize you wanted a structured debate.

10/10

f course that doesn't matter in the slightest here because you are specifically told who dies.

That wasn't an argument, just an observation. Also, that didn't reduce your argument, it just quoted your argument literally. Do you not understand what I meant or something?

Well...

Swerving into people who are crossing on red on the other side of the road is a tricky. Having strict red lights for pedestrians could be really useful for giving self-driving cars an escape route. The morality of swerving into people depends on whether this is a rule which society implements or not.

You have made a few points. I felt that I was addressing them, but you apparently felt I was ignoring them.
>human lives should be protected
We agree.
>the machine should protect the greatest number of human lives regardless of their situration
We disagree. I made my points above. You made yours.
>abiding by traffic safety laws does not grant any reasonable expectation of safety
I argue this is patently false.
cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/

I guess I don't accept scenario.

a guy in the back seat of a car wearing his seatbelt assuming there's no bricks in the boot should have a higher chance of surviving all-be it maybe minus a few limbs.
then a old women in the middle of the road.

and I feel the car should go for whatever gives the most people, the highest chance of survival.

>I argue this is patently false.
You didn't really argue, just said it was false.

That's stupid. You know nothing about the situation aside from the fact that the car can't brake. It could be going incredibly fast, or the wall could be incredibly devious and kill you easily.

there should be some safety precaution where if there happens to be a sudden brake failure, the whole vehicle just shuts down and completely disassembles itself on the spot, piece by piece

kek, that would just send smaller shrapnel flying through the air.

I cited a CDC source which states that, "It is much safer to walk on a sidewalk or path" which cites a DOT report, which states, "More [pedestrian fatalities] occurred at non-intersections (69%) than at intersections (20%)"

>all-be it
Really?

We should just give them all a high-yield explosive self destruct for these situations. Take everyone out and avoid the decision altogether.

this is my view and i think everyone should learn this: when i was younger, my dad ALWAYS told me, if youre in a crosswalk, you damn well better still be paying attention to your surroundings, this world is full of idiots, and someone might be on their phone or driving drunk or whatever the fuck while driving, anything can happen, and you could be hit by a car without a second thought, so if you see a car comin at you at high speeds and it doesnt seem to be slowing down, you better get the fuck out of the way, the people who are driving might be in the wrong, but youre still the one whos gonna pay the ultimate price
that being said, if a self driving car has sudden brake failure and the only two options are to either kill the pedestrians or kill the passengers, then it should target the pedestrians because if they pedestrians are paying enough attention like they SHOULD be, then they will get out of the way in time and wont get hit

Okay? That doesn't mean that you should expect to be safe there, in fact it means there's a good chance to be hit there, which is my point. Also, I used the past tense for a reason, you only brought that up just now.
How about a booster under the car, so it could at least do a sick jump before everybody dies?

I've seen a lot of crashes
you have a point, I accept that.
but I guess I'm drawing on experience.
If I had to choose between being hit by a car or being in a car driving into a wall I'd choose car.

English isn't my first language.
I'm pretty dependent on the spell checker turning what I want to say into proper words.
occasionally it fails me

> That doesn't mean that you should expect to be safe there
It precisely means that you should expect to be MORE SAFE when abiding the traffic laws than if you ignore them.
They are demonstrably not an equal risk of bodily harm.
It is provably true that sidewalks and crosswalks are safer than walking in the street, or against the signal.
>you only brought that up just now
To be honest, I did not believe that I needed to cite sources to prove that abiding the law is safer than stepping into traffic.

Fair enough.
The actual word you were looking for is "albeit."

>It precisely means that you should expect to be MORE SAFE when abiding the traffic laws than if you ignore them.
Yes. However, that's irrelevant. I wasn't arguing that sidewalks are safer than traffic, I was arguing that expecting sidewalks/crosswalks to be safe is wrong, which it definitely is.

i am the judge dredd of traffic management

you win this round English
>albeit
into the dictionary with you

looks like Albert

They dont and never will. Its just an easy way tk explain why these accidents have to happen. Its not about the car crash its about evaluating who shoild live and who should die and then justifying that.

I always choose to make as many humans live as possible and choose "better" people only when it meant that the same number of lives were lost.

Stop worrying about the premise.

The car should behave like a human driver would behave in this situation. It should try to preserve the lives of the passengers.
You can't have cars making moral decisions. It would completely destroy the trust in established rules of the road traffic.

>I am the law

moralmachine.mit.edu/hl/en/results/-552654127

...

>you should expect to be MORE SAFE when abiding
>that's irrelevant
No, it isn't.

My whole point at the start was that the law-abiding citizen waiting for the crosswalk signal is avoiding the risk of jaywalking.
In context, it is clear that my "expectation of safety" is in contrast to that risk of jaywalking.
It should not be in contrast to the risk of staying indoors entirely, as that was not a comparison in this scenario.

Your attempt at a counter argument that "You're also wrongly assuming that you're safe on a crosswalk, hell you're always at risk if you're walking right next to cars." disregards this context entirely.
It implies a false equality in the risk of bodily harm of standing on the sidewalk and stepping in front of a moving vehicle.

At this point, I have reinforced, defended, and I believe proven that a person abiding by traffic safety laws has an expectation of safety, in the context of traffic.
Conversely, a person ignoring traffic laws is disregarding their own safety.

I return to my original point that a self-driving machine should not swerve into a law-abiding citizen to avoid two jaywalkers.
The jaywalkers took on risk to themselves when they stepped into traffic.
For the car to swerve and hit someone else transfers that consequence onto someone else, who had no agency in this decision.
This person did not decide to break the law and put himself at risk.
This person did not decide for the car to swerve.
This person did not decide to sacrifice himself.
This person is therefore being killed through no fault of his own.

I argue that this is an injustice and morally reprehensible.

The situation I propose is that the vehicle hit the jaywalkers.
The jaywalkers ignored traffic safety laws, putting themselves at risk.
They made a decision, aware of the potential consequences.
If the vehicle hits them, it is a result of their own decision.

It is a greater loss of human life, but it is more just.

>Implying self-driving cars would barrel at an intersection so fast they couldn't stop
>Implying self-driving cars aren't 100% aware of their surroundings at all times
>Implying self-driving cars have to make decisions of who to kill

Self driving cars have been on the road for 16 million miles and they've been in ONE wreck that was caused by them -- every other wreck (about once a month) is someone rear-ending the self-driving car at a red light.

Meanwhile humans wreck about once every 150,000 miles

Statistically they're already better drivers. I don't know why human drivers aren't illegal yet

Calm down retard its the axiom for a thought experiment not a fucking model for how automated cars should kill.

I'm
and I condone this
if you walkout on a red light, you don't get to be salty when you get hit

Cont.
If you want to argue the moral value of human life versus the moral value value of justice, fine, but stop trying to argue that abiding by the law does not imply an expectation of safety in this context.

You did not make that clear then, I was arguing against statements like >As a pedestrian, you expect that staying on the sidewalk and using the crosswalk keep you safe.

Thank you.
I've been arguing this for a couple hours now, and I was starting to feel crazy.
It's good to know I'm not alone in this.

>You did not make that clear then
Sorry, I guess I expected context to make that clear.

The rules are in place to ensure your safe, if you are unwilling to follow simple rules to keep yourself and others safe why should I prioritize you over someone who is willing to keep themselves and others safe?

Because there are two lives instead of one there.