A self driving dilemma.

[Goonie]

Who should AI kill in a driverless car crash? It depends who you ask
So a self driving car finds itself given the choice of swerving to avoid pedestrians and killing its passengers, or ploughing into the pedestrians.

What is the moral choice? Does the make up of pedestrians, passengers matter?

 

[zephcom]

Who should AI kill in a driverless car crash? It depends who you ask
So a self driving car finds itself given the choice of swerving to avoid pedestrians and killing its passengers, or ploughing into the pedestrians.

What is the moral choice? Does the make up of pedestrians, passengers matter?

I just read an article about this. Someone did a survey on multiple continents to see how potential users of these cars would want them programmed. It seems there are cultural differences regarding who should be protected and who should be sacrificed.

My guess is that the programmers are going to punt this one. I think there will be a checklist of things new owners will have to decide about how their new ride will function and this will be one of the things the owner will get to customize for themselves.

 

[Goonie]

I just read an article about this. Someone did a survey on multiple continents to see how potential users of these cars would want them programmed. It seems there are cultural differences regarding who should be protected and who should be sacrificed.

My guess is that the programmers are going to punt this one. I think there will be a checklist of things new owners will have to decide about how their new ride will function and this will be one of the things the owner will get to customize for themselves.

More likely it will be decided by the insurers, and regulations.

 

[Sabertooth]

I have been to a site that polls on the question of occupants vs. pedestrians, the comparative social value of different types of pedestrians, etc.

Those questions are really overstated. The sensors in question will never be able to make a determination of a pedestrian's social status, only an estimation of their comparative mass. If their posture is unexpected, like a wheelchair or a recumbent bicycle, they may not even do that correctly.

 

[zephcom]

More likely it will be decided by the insurers, and regulations.

Perhaps, but I don't see either of those wanting the responsibility for it any more than the auto companies or the programmers. And if they don't want the responsibility, they can kick the can down the road.

If anyone other than the owner is deciding, I would think they would decide to make it a random selection at the time the accident was going to happen. Computers could easily do that.

 

[WolfGate]

I have been to a site that polls on the question of occupants vs. pedestrians, the comparative social value of different types of pedestrians, etc.

Those questions are really overstated. The sensors in question will never be able to make a determination of a pedestrian's social status, only an estimation of their comparative mass. If their posture is unexpected, like a wheelchair or a recumbent bicycle, they may not even do that correctly.

Saw a fascinating demo in action at a trade show this summer - the system had much greater capability than what you stated above. For example, a combination of radar and Lidar was able to correctly discern not only a pedestrian walking, but also that the pedestrian was looking down at his phone while approaching a crosswalk against the light. There were other equally cool things it was able to determine. So, in time, I don't think a wheelchair or bicycle will be a problem.

To the OP, yes, that is one of the big questions, and it will take insurance/legislative action as one part of sorting it out.

 

[Goonie]

Saw a fascinating demo in action at a trade show this summer - the system had much greater capability than what you stated above. For example, a combination of radar and Lidar was able to correctly discern not only a pedestrian walking, but also that the pedestrian was looking down at his phone while approaching a crosswalk against the light. There were other equally cool things it was able to determine. So, in time, I don't think a wheelchair or bicycle will be a problem.

To the OP, yes, that is one of the big questions, and it will take insurance/legislative action as one part of sorting it out.

Have to agree. It’s likely going to be insururers and legislators who will decide on the balance.

 

[Sabertooth]

So, in time, I don't think a wheelchair or bicycle will be a problem.

Maybe, but determining who is a doctor, politician, unemployed, ex-con, etc. will be harder to pull off.

 

[ananda]

Who should AI kill in a driverless car crash? It depends who you ask
So a self driving car finds itself given the choice of swerving to avoid pedestrians and killing its passengers, or ploughing into the pedestrians.

What is the moral choice? Does the make up of pedestrians, passengers matter?

Lacking artificial consciousness, the only moral and ethical choice is for programmers to program their artificial intelligences to follow the laws of the road as strictly as possible.

It should respond to such dangerous situations quickly & efficiently, attempting to prioritize preserving the lives of its passengers, with a view towards minimizing harm to pedestrians.

Given that all actors are obeying the laws of the road, there should exist very few accidents - and those that remain will often be because of equipment failure.

 

[AirPo]

I'd like to think the average person behind the wheel would automatically react to avoid pedestrians.

This reminds me of the scene from I-Robot. Will Smith wants the robot to save the little girl, but it saves him because the odds were better saving him.

 

[WolfGate]

I'd like to think the average person behind the wheel would automatically react to avoid pedestrians.

This reminds me of the scene from I-Robot. Will Smith wants the robot to save the little girl, but it saves him because the odds were better saving him.

I'm not sure the majority of people behind the wheel would pick hitting a semi-truck head on over hitting a pedestrian. In fact, I think instinctive self-preservation would take over in that split second situation and they would swerve away from the truck.

 

[AirPo]

I'm not sure the majority of people behind the wheel would pick hitting a semi-truck head on over hitting a pedestrian. In fact, I think instinctive self-preservation would take over in that split second situation and they would swerve away from the truck.

I disagree.

 

[zephcom]

I'm not sure the majority of people behind the wheel would pick hitting a semi-truck head on over hitting a pedestrian. In fact, I think instinctive self-preservation would take over in that split second situation and they would swerve away from the truck.

Honestly.....I don't think anyone mentally debates the morality of the decision in the split second they have to respond.

I think they just react in a manner which is the best way to avoid an accident. If they live through the accident, then they create a moral mental picture which defends their actions.

And if I were the programmer, I would program the same response into the car...the move is to avoid the accident. One is likely only going to get one move. When the dust settles, someone else will decide if that was the best maneuver available in the situation.

Then the programmers can add the result of that evaluation to the car's database. Eventually, cars will always be making the best defensive move better than any driver could possibly make.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe, but determining who is a doctor, politician, unemployed, ex-con, etc. will be harder to pull off.

Perhaps a 'chip' can be implanted that shows occupation, profession, or social status. That way the auto can run over the poor working class schlubs.

 

[durangodawood]

People should pre-pay for priority preservation as pedestrians.

 

[durangodawood]

Perhaps a 'chip' can be implanted that shows occupation, profession, or social status. That way the auto can run over the poor working class schlubs.

Thats very smart, and would be integral to my proposal presented above.

If your RFID chip isnt paid up, let your companion walk next to the curb.

 

[jayem]

To my limited knowledge, self-driving programs don't serve vehicles to avoid collisions. If the sensors detect an obstacle imminently in the vehicle's path, it quickly and strongly applies the brakes. Which it can do with much less reaction delay than a human driver. But I could be mistaken.

 

[durangodawood]

To my limited knowledge, self-driving programs don't serve vehicles to avoid collisions. If the sensors detect an obstacle imminently in the vehicle's path, it quickly and strongly applies the brakes. Which it can do with much less reaction delay than a human driver. But I could be mistaken.

Not swerving can amount to a "decision" to strike the obstacle in front of you, when its close enough.

 

[Goonie]

To my limited knowledge, self-driving programs don't serve vehicles to avoid collisions. If the sensors detect an obstacle imminently in the vehicle's path, it quickly and strongly applies the brakes. Which it can do with much less reaction delay than a human driver. But I could be mistaken.

And there's a human driver behind with far slower reactions. Yep the scenario in the Op is very theoretical, but there are obvious issues with self driving cars on roads with other traffic.

 

[jayem]

Not swerving can amount to a "decision" to strike the obstacle in front of you, when its close enough.

Sure. And that's what seat belts and air bags are for. Bodily injury can't always be totally avoided, but with good engineering, it can be mitigated.