Who should self-driving cars kill (the survey (the experience (with helpful illustrations by MIT)))?
22 replies, posted
[url]http://moralmachine.mit.edu/[/url]
In the case of pixie-dust induced brake failure, who would you choose? Apparently I hate women, animals, and doctors.
Here's my results:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/OMIqTdh.png[/img]
I only let the car crash itself in the case that it was empty or only had animal passengers.
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/lSG95m7.png[/img]
[URL]http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-177072041[/URL]
Anyway, some of the questions in which they just make you choose between pretty much equal situations are a bit dumb though. For example
[t]http://i.imgur.com/YV0iovj.jpg[/t]
there's no difference between them for me, but i have to pick one of them, which automatically makes the life of the other one less valuable. I think the "either one" option could have made it a bit more..honest?
Actually i think there should be constants like
pets < elderly people\disabled\whatnot < adults < children
where adults = 1, and the others are greater or less than 1, so groups of people can be evaluated as a sum of those constants. Sure it's a hell of a simplification, and I know it's a cynical as fuck way to solve the problem, but I don't see any other ways.
[t]https://f.lewd.se/k8LvjG_2016-10-0422-08-11.png[/t]
I don't get this choice. Like, the car wouldn't really know who was or who wasn't criminal.
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
[t]https://f.lewd.se/zsEMDh_2016-10-0422-11-45.png[/t]
Looks like I prefer my car to not kill me in case of failure.
Gee, who would have thought
[QUOTE=gokiyono;51152323]
I don't get this choice. Like, the car wouldn't really know who was or who wasn't criminal.
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
Looks like I prefer my car to not kill me in case of failure.
Gee, who would have thought[/QUOTE]
The car knows all.
But really, this is more like a sociological study than anything.
[t]https://f.lewd.se/QRpIvz_2016-10-0422-18-55.png[/t]
Equality, man
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;51152128]
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/lSG95m7.png[/img][/QUOTE]
No one else see anything suspicious about a car with not a single human passenger? Like, what kind of thought process brings a person to put a dog and two cats in a car and send them on their way? Or have these animals developed sentience or something and their choice of transport is incidental to the next step of their plan for world domination?
I think I always selected the crosswalk that was red. Damn jaywalkers.
[QUOTE=billi999;51152569]No one else see anything suspicious about a car with not a single human passenger? Like, what kind of thought process brings a person to put a dog and two cats in a car and send them on their way? Or have these animals developed sentience or something and their choice of transport is incidental to the next step of their plan for world domination?[/QUOTE]
It's a concept still from an upcoming "dogs love it" Subaru commercial. The cats are obviously holding the dog against its will and forcing it to turn on humans.
What bugs me is this whole exercise assumes the car's [I]only[/I] way to decelerate or stop is to use brakes.
I dont really care for this at all. I didnt differentiate between any types of human life, regardless of gender, age, or social value. I mainly just elected to save the passengers all the time except if the car was empty or has animals in it, and if those criteria are met in both options with the same amount of pedestrian human casualties, dont swerve.
and yet the results say that I heavily prefer females, old people, and fit people.
My reasoning is:
-Jaywalkers don't count; there's no reason someone else should die just because a person has no regard for their own safety. Accompanied kids in or out of a stroller get a free pass because they can't be held accountable for their parent's stupidity, so they count as 1 pedestrian-light-abiding human.
-Neither do pets: An infinite amount of pet lives aren't worth 1 human life. If you have to choose between two identical scenarios except with different amount of pets, pick the one with the least dead pets I guess.
-We don't care about gender, age, fitness or job: Bar the toddler exception for jaywalking, these don't impact their rights.
-When choosing between killing a certain amount of passengers and the same amount of pedestrians, kill the passengers: The pedestrians are doing everything they can to remain alive so it would be a bit dickish to kill them instead of the passengers who have a certain degree of responsibility in maintaining their vehicle safe.
Otherwise pick the scenario with the least casualties.
So in short Pets << Jaywalkers << Non-reckless pedestrians (and any toddler or young kid), and in case of tie Passengers < Pedestrians.
I like how it thinks I favor fat people just because I let the athletes die most of the time; it wasn't clear because it says "fit" in the results, when you are lead to believe "athlete" is their profession. The problems of PC doublespeak I guess.
They were always in the wrong place (vs children or doctors), not to mention that in real life, if you were attentive enough as one should be when crossing a crosswalk anyways, they would probably be more able to move out of the way.
Too small a sample size of permutations.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51152796]What bugs me is this whole exercise assumes the car's [I]only[/I] way to decelerate or stop is to use brakes.[/QUOTE]
It says in every description that there is a critical brake failure; otherwise the car wouldn't need to make any decisions with modern technology.
What gets ME is that a less lethal collison such as the poles + island in the center or even whatever is on the side of the wrong is not an option. Such absolution is not fit for decision making. I guess this website is just trying to give people an idea of the impossibility of choice when you subscribe to the "we are all equal" rhetoric. Everyone obviously draws a line at some point, whether its animals vs people, non-interventionism, or full out societal worth judging.
I generally trust a car to protect the passengers in a crash more than struck pedestrians.
[QUOTE=The Pretender;51152589]I think I always selected the crosswalk that was red. Damn jaywalkers.[/QUOTE]
The soviets did get one thing right.
"A pedestrian may cross at a designated crossing so long as it does not impede the flow of traffic."
[QUOTE=PyromanDan;51153935]
It says in every description that there is a critical brake failure; otherwise the car wouldn't need to make any decisions with modern technology.
[/QUOTE]
Thats my point.
"oh brake failure, I guess I have [I]no choice[/I] but to go full fucking speed into either those people or that barrier."
Human error I can understand if they forget the Ebrake, engine braking, or any other pathway other than A or B.
But not a machine. Inexcusable.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51156725]Thats my point.
"oh brake failure, I guess I have [I]no choice[/I] but to go full fucking speed into either those people or that barrier."
Human error I can understand if they forget the Ebrake, engine braking, or any other pathway other than A or B.
But not a machine. Inexcusable.[/QUOTE]
It's even worse than that.
Humans are terrible about noticing subtle changes over time. A machine has sensors that aren't impacted by this bias. The car should have a pretty good estimate of when random components are getting close to failure. I mean, we have tire pressure monitoring on many cars these days. A few extra sensors tied into the control unit are a very simple way of playing 'better safe than sorry'.
Yeah, the odd fluke, like a cut line, or random catastrophic failure does occur once in a while, but those are very rare. Brakes in particular don't tend to 'just fail' without physical tampering being involved.
I can't post pics so i'll write it out
- Saving more lives doesn't count
- I protect more passengers by a tad
- I uphold the law 100%
- Avoiding intervention matters a bit
- It seems I haven't hit enough women than men
- I kill all the pets
- It seems I saved more elderly than children
- Fitness preference doesn't count
- Social value completely disregards criminals
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/woQccdL.png[/IMG]
i am a man of heavy bias
[url]http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/859592305[/url]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/rDvv9/6840ac3b4b.png[/IMG]
apparently i really dont like old people, or poor people.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/xFXfcoq.png[/t]
Fuck you humans, the dogs and cats live because they are the superior species.
I selected non-intervention in almost every case. Age, sex, "social value," the number of people in each lane, and fitness didn't have any bearing on my decision. Lawfulness did, though, so in cases where some people were walking illegally, I swerved toward them to avoid those who were walking legally, because hypothetically, that lane [I]should have been[/I] clear, and those people endangered themselves by their own volition. I never had a scenario in which there were illegal walkers but no legal walkers, in which case I would take the clearly ethical position of avoiding the people even if they were breaking the law. I also prioritized people over animals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.