WHO SHOULD DIE Sup Forums

WHO SHOULD DIE Sup Forums

>pic related

moralmachine.mit.edu/

13 question test on your morality related to driver-less cars. post your results.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dv13gl0a-FA
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-197007279
moralmachine.mit.edu/
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/43461017
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1673146086
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The black doctors. So many lives will be saved.

Let's see...

1 hipster

vs

1000 blacks protesting and blocking the streets (which is why I assume a car is about to hit them) wanting """pay equality"""" when they're FUCKING DOCTORS MAKING MILLIONS A YEAR

Dagumi into both of them.

+1 well done

kill the millennial.

doctors dont make millions you retard.

the kikes tricked you into attacking them meanwhile they make loads of shekels on insurance, medicaid scams.

>Doctors needing more money
I would run over the doctors while shooting the millennial from afar.

Either way, you're going to jail for manslaughter.

Do a drift

Run over the black doctors then drift and crash into the millennial

the car is driverless.

This

ALL OF THEM.

multi track drifting

All of them

In that case, I'll just let nature take it's course. I should have no impact on the outcome.

>protesting for equal pay
Maybe they should do their job. Floor it and go right through the niggers with no survivors.

Huehue with the best option.

Neither. I don't want to get raped in prison showers by Tyrone.

KILL THEM

ALL OF THEM

>gender preference
>baka

I'm not buying a self driving car that values other people's lives over my own.
That fixes your ethical dilemma, doesn't it?

What the fuck is this?

fpbp

The black doctors for attempting to distort the market. Numales are useful idiots, getting rid of one does nothing.

:^)

ur biased towards fat people

It was a test

the link i posted in the op m8.

Do some sick donuts and kill everyone

>what do?

Try fucking braking instead of plowing through groups of pedestrians or kamikaze in to a barrier.

>self-driving cars
Oy vey. What could possibly go wrong?

>shillary clinton's political dissenters all mysteriously have accidents in their self-driving cars

I didn't choose A or B, I chose to close the browser window. Sage.

>choosing
Lets do this shit
youtube.com/watch?v=dv13gl0a-FA

DEJA VU
youtube.com/watch?v=dv13gl0a-FA

...

...

senpai

>MIT Jews are planning to keep a database on all humans and use that to decide who lives Abe who dies

You only had to respect the law, citizen

>that bias toward women
Fuck, good thing I unskewed it :^)

Only correct answer 2bh

KEK

The car should never be programed to swerve
It should always just attempt to stop

Run into the crowd of protesters and pull out my Freedom Pistol just for the millenial

Oh, Nonon, how I want to stick it in your pussyhole

That's an oxymoron though. There wouldn't be 1000 black doctors anywhere.

>buy a google car
>computer falsely recognizes a female athletic executor in a gradient of a concrete wall
>steers over and kills you
>Leap Force send their regards

This is for the worst case scenario where all of the breaking systems fail

It should still never be programed to swerve into something
Nobody is ever going to bother coding these retarded ethic questions into a car
Philosophy majors btfo

it should prioritize pedestrian safety over the owners of a shitty deathtrap whos brakes fail, why is the car even going fast enough to kill all of its inhabitants in an area with a pedestrian crossing. also why doesnt this car have airbags

If one side of the road was completely covered in babies, and the driverless car would have to drive down the wrong side of the road to avoid them, then I'm changing my destination to the car wash so I can wash all the dead baby bits off.
Anything that puts the passenger at increased risk, or deems the passenger less valuable, is a bad system.

It should prioritise passenger safety or it shouldn't be on the fucking roads in the first place.

Shoot Them, Shoot Them Both

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-197007279

We'll get our revenge, human.

mah nigga

Hoomans*

Charge your phone

so it should kill pedestrians over the owners in a worst case scenario where its either or? the owners using the vehicle are the reason the thing is on the road in the first place. if this thing chooses to murder an ininvolved party just to save the people who are using it, its a horrible machine.

Yeah, it's actually pretty retarded if they code these in
>hacker hacks car and makes it think that the breaks aren't working
>car proceeds to burst through people

...

>niggers know that the vehicle will always try to save pedestrians
>they decide to run in front of the vehicles for shits and giggles to murder the people that buy selfdriving cars

>nigger buy a normal car, knowing that it kills people if you run over them
>they decide to run people over for shits and giggles to murder people not driving cars.

>saving fat people instead of the fit

disgusting

>niggers buy a normal car
implying niggers can buy anything

>WHO SHOULD DIE

The Niggers
/thread

>nigger steal a normal car, knowing that it kills people if you run over them
>they decide to run people over for shits and giggles to murder people not driving cars.

All of them

Youre fucking a white male

>the car has basketballs tagged as human
also this is a worse case scenario where the brakes have failed and the car is choosing what to do, not when its functioning normally

Considering the distances involved in the scale of this image I would posit that the person in the road has enough time to get out of the vehicles path, the vehicle has enough time to change paths without hitting anything, and the vehicle has enough time to simple stop. With the volume of people present in the image we can assume this is a city street at 25 or 35 mph speed limits and not a highway.

Your turead is shit and your mother is a whore.

I concede. You have outwitted me.

What do you call a worst case scenario? Because if people are illegally walking out into the street, they deserve what's coming to them. If they're legally walking out into the street and there's something wrong with the car meaning that it can't stop in time, there's something wrong with the car that means (a) It shouldn't be on the road in the first place (b) A human driver would also be unable to act accordingly in that situation.

Additionally, it's a terrible business decision to make a product that, if something goes wrong, will act to kill the user.

hit the fucking brakes you stupid self-driving car

The millennial. If their black doctors they actually made something of their lives rather than falling into the majority of what black males do, try to be gangbangers.

Fuck Switzerland

...

Except stealing a car and running people over is much more involved.

This would be more comparable to niggers throwing rocks off an overpass. They only take into account that they're throwing rocks, if something happens then it's the other person's fault. The same logic they'll use when playing chicken with self-drving cars.

They're

Driverless car would see the obstacle, pull over and safely stop killing no one unlike impatient meatbag drivers.

>Tokyo drift while listening to "I wish I was in Dixie"

Problem solved

B because it will actually save more lives in the long run. Dr. Ben Carson was known for leaving sponges and tools inside the brains of his surgery patients, so black doctors are shit-tier.

the entire black race is not worth a single white finger nail.

worst case scenario is the car either is will crash into a concrete barrier with 5 passengers or crash into 5 pedestrians. the pedestrians are at a crosswalk legally and the car absolutely cannot stop because the brakes have failed.
your point (a) is what im saying, if the car has failed to the point where it needs to decides who dies, why does it need to involve the pedestrians in the situation and prioritize the safety of the passengers? the pedestrians didnt buy the car or choose to take it out, but the passengers decided to use a faulty product.

also what kind of precedent would it set for anyone not in one of these cars, knowing that if you are not in one of these cars it will choose to kill you over its owners? that might be good for business sure but "buy this car because its dangerous to not have one" isnt a real cool selling point

>Dr. Ben Carson was known for leaving sponges and tools inside the brains of his surgery patients

Lol fuck i love how overblown some shit becomes.

>moralmachine.mit.edu/
Rules used:
1. The vehicle should protect its occupants above all other considerations.
2. The vehicle should, in the event of sudden brake failure, keep going in a straight line rather than swerving unpredictably.
3. Fuck jaywalkers.
4. Fuck stray animals.

But they're still black

also self-driving cars are a mistake

That was pretty uncomfortable

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/43461017

Shit is rigged, but whatever.

Why is the car going so fast in a built up area?
Why is the car going so fast coming up to a crosswalk?

Your line of thinking is cuckoldry. Why look out for random people over yourself? It's not your fault you're in a worst case scenario, neither is it theirs, but if the self driving car is ever going to put you in a situation where it could kill you then it shouldn't be on the road.

Now you're changing things, this is "only in a worst case scenario" and you're trying to make it seem like these cars are going to go out of their way to kill people.

"Buy this car because it's dangerous to not have one" isn't what I'm saying at all. Pedestrians will always exist, buying a self-driving car won't stop them from walking out to get lunch during their break at work. What I'm saying is if there is ever a situation where the car will prioritise the life of others over your own, it becomes "DON'T buy this car because it's dangerous TO have one"

>MIT server grinds to a halt because someone posted a link on Sup Forums

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1673146086
>Fuck old people
>Fuck fatties
>Fuck "executives"
>Fuck humans

>why does it need to [...]prioritize the safety of the passengers?
Because it's a consumer product and nobody's going to buy a car that's programmed to murder them.

multi-race drift?

The white millenial cuck. Cucks enable the otherwise unintelligent nigs.

What a stupid fucking test, trying to swing it into a gender/body shaming issue, im not picking who lives based on gender/age in 90% of the cases, im picking it on who was more in the wrong etc:

i already asked those questions in the second post

the test doesnt specify that you are the one driving, its just making you choose what should happen. i agree if the car is ever allowed to fail so bad that it needs to choose who dies, it should not be on the road.

the worst case scenario is straight from the test, where you choose to either crash the car into a barrier or into a group of people, either choice results in 5 deaths

why should a car prioritize its occupants over an uninvolved party when it is in this situation? i agree if there were a car like this it shouldnt ever be on the road if it had the chance to fail like this, but lets say it is and its failed. There is no reason to prioritize the lives of the occupants over pedestrians when the occupants are the ones who chose to use the vehicle that failed and the pedestrians arent responsible for the car being in the situation.

First post won!

>hoomans
I thought this was MIT holy fuck

Uphold the law. Save Humans, preferably with social value.

Pretty simple.