Why is /g/ incapable of hypothetic scenarios discussion?
Is it the autism? I though it was a meme.
Everytime this thread get made, a million angry neckbeards starts spouting
>hurr can't happeeennn!!!
yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
I'd say it would be k if the car killed me instead of a group of white men, but if the group consisted of children, women or refugees i would prefer just to plow right through them
>>52667011
But it actually is very unlikely to happen.
And if it did happen, it would be most likely the pedestrians' fault, so the car should run them over anyway.
>>52667011
>dickass criminal youthgangs running around on highways to make self driving cars kill the passengers for shits and giggles
>>52667011
I expect my car to save me, so I pick option D, run over everyone.
>>52667011
why do people insist that the only way driverless cars to work is to program them with every possible scenario?
Do you really thing sandeep is sitting there at scenario #FDDBC-420 "What if the car has the choice to hit 1 pedestrian to save many?"
Driverless cars will work with algorithms, formulas and perhaps neural networks but they're not going to be billions upon billions of if, else statements coded by an ethics committee.
>>52667051
>so the car should run them over anyway.
You're saying that from a human perspective judging who was in the "right" or "wrong" and punishing the one in the wrong.
You have no idea what equations the computer is going to run to decide what the "correct" option will be.
This is bigger than a self driving car debate, it extends into AI and is a complicated debate that most 4chan users don't even begin to understand. Not saying i understand it all either, before neckbeards jump down my throat.
>>52667011
the car gives the control back to the human. That's what happens. End of story end of threads.
>>52667113
>>the car gives the control back to the human
these cars are gonna have playstations and shit
why would I get a self driving car if i need to pay attention anyway
>>52667011
Honestly, this is only a matter of legal liability. I would not have a car that kills me though. It would also mean that a pedestrian could commit manslaughter/murder via second-order actions.
>>52667111
I was sure the question was "should the car kill the passengers, or the pedestrians?". The equations are going to be created by humans anyway.
And a piece of technology should be loyal to its owner anyway.
fuck your machiavellian shit
I bought this car and it should do WHAT I want.
>>52667011
I'm an individualist. I don't advocate utilitarianism.
The car should kill the people in the road. If the car is programmed to follow the rules of the road it's not at fault if it's moving at a speed where slowing down is not an option (i.e. on the highways, or at 40mph+ intersections where there is a green light). That means the pedestrian wandered out where they shouldn't be and thus they deserved to die. The pedestrian only has the right of way in crosswalks and residential neighborhoods, where the speed limits are around 25mph for this very reason. Everywhere else they are actually jaywalking and are at fault if they get hit.
Tl;dr- the car better kill the pedestrians if it's moving at a speed where it's can't slow down.
Ps, if it's moving at a speed where it can't slow down, it's probably not going go change direction well either. It would probably flip and roll on its side and roll over all the pedestrians it tried to avoid.
>>52667011
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
What if OP was a faggot?
>>52667011
You have manual override so you can still do whatever the fuck you want and if that is running over a small crowd to avoid possibility of death then you can
Not that it matters because you will get life in prison
![Portrait_of_Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli_by_Santi_di_Tito[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0u0OGVO.jpg "Portrait_of_Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli_by_Santi_di_Tito[1].jpg")
mmmmm
the greater good
>>52667126
You do what everyone else is doing and not pay attention on any road except shitty country roads and say youre going to be a good driver and stuff when getting your new license
>>52667177
>car senses unavoidable 'Greater Good' collision imminent
>promptly alters its logs to pretend the driver was in control
>copies all suspicious data to an SD card and shoots it out the exhaust pipe
>driver gets 25-to-life
>Google's image is unharmed
>>52667127
This. If I'm paying thousands of dollars for a self driving car, then it better do everything it can go save me.
>>52667188
>>52667200
The correct answer is nanomachines.
>>52667207
>>52667189
Gave me a good kek.
>>52667011
>hurr durr let's discuss a thing that cannot possibly happen for its phisolophical meaning because I'm a faggot who doesn't know shit about technology on a technology board
>>52667011
For a group of people I'd say the
Number of Passengers in the Car > Number of people in said group
>Hit the brakes and hope for the best, don't kill the passengers in the car. Higher chance that less people die.
Number of Passengers in the car < Number of people in said group
>kill the passengers
Now if there is a a guy that would die if you dodge the crowd but the passengers in the car don't die: Always kill the guy
If there is a guy that would die if you dodge the crowd and the passengers in the car die in this process too:
Passenger + guy > Crowd
>hit the brakes and hope for the best, don't kill the guy. That way there's a higher chance that more people survive
Passenger + guy < Crowd
>Kill passenger + guy, dodge the crowd
If there is only one guy that the car would kill if it didn't dodge him
Number of passengers in the car > the guy
>hit the brakes
Number of passengers in the car = the guy
>hit the brakes, he might survive
I didn't put too much thought into this.
>>52667200
>>52667207
>>52667220
This...THIS!!! THIS IS SIMPLY EPIC!!!!!!!!!!
I think that cars over a certain price point would have their Greater Good programming "malfunction". These same cars will also have their killswitch function "malfunction", as well. The rich are the Greater Good.
>>52667220
![Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu 047.mp4_snapshot_01.46_[2016.01.01_17.34.26].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uAZAh3d.jpg "Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu 047.mp4_snapshot_01.46_[2016.01.01_17.34.26].jpg")
>>52667239
holy shit that failsafe
you did get a 40, but in the seconds!
Yes the car should automatically self destruct when confronted with a problem of this nature.
Or invent better brakes, and brake sooner, since the driving software + sensors have a much shorter reaction time than a human.
>>52667170
You would not get prison time if a gaggle of people wandered into the road and you hit them unless you hit them in a residential area. That's the exact reason why highways run either on or over bridges, are mostly fenced off by either walls, fences, or trees, and don't cut into neighborhoods.
People aren't supposed to be walking across the highway.
Now if we're talking about an intersection where the road is set around 35mph+, that is fixed with the fact that we have yellow lights. The yellow lights tell the driver to either slow down or speed up based on the position relative to the light and make sure they aren't in the intersection by the time the red light hits. After the red light hits, the crosswalk signs flash to indicate that pedestrians can cross. If someone is crossing the road and gets hit by a driverless car obeying the rules of the road, that means they wandered out during a fucking green or yellow light.
As far as children are concerned, children shouldn't be crossing the roads in high traffic areas unattended anyway.
Nigger it's an invalid question, what the fuck would a human do in that situation?
There, now that we can discuss the question as hypothetically as it actually is, it'd do whatever a moral human would do.
Just break as efficiently as possible.
>>52667225
The problem here is your could have gangs of people jumping in front of self driving cars with the intent of killing its passengers.
I'd say the passengers should be valued above all else, because there isn't really a situation where people would legally be allowed on the road with fast moving cars.
Why should anyone die? Just make extremely powerful air brakes that stop it near instantly.
>>52667255
>what the fuck would a human do in that situation?
a car can't go to jail.
How about rather than "HUUR CAN'T HAPPEN", we assume if it did happen it's most likely the fault of non-passengers.
>>52667170
This. Most, if not all, self driving cars have manual override.
>>52667011
>WHAT IF???????
what if your waifu came to life and fucked you with a strap on? WHAT IF. Please don't pretend that you have an argument that's worth anything.
if the car has the "intelligence" enough to drive
I'd imagine it would also be able to calculate the trajectory and spin of the car should it need to do a crazy 360 or something that would crash the car with minimal injuries.
Assuming theres a roll cage
or just have one of those "breakers" they have in those new tabel saws. As soonn as crash seems imminent drop the motor out of the chasis or something.
other alternative is some inertia absorbion mechanism and just ejecting the passengers in a safe manner
>>52667011
I won't pay for a car that would kill me under any circumstances and I'm pretty sure most drivers think the same way.
So fuck pedestrians, it's their fault.
>>52667281
Just because AI responsibility isn't socially installed yet doesn't mean you can ignore it.
>>52667011
Shouldn't the cat receive information about people being there and slow down then stop?
What if it was cattle?
>>52667274
And break all the passengers necks, great idea.
>>52667011
this is stupid op
>>52667274
>Just make extremely powerful air brakes that stop it near instantly.
The wheel would lock up.
>>52667298
Strap yourself properly.
Including your forehead.
![Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu 027.mp4_snapshot_21.30_[2015.12.29_12.51.58].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/v2huQCI.jpg "Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu 027.mp4_snapshot_21.30_[2015.12.29_12.51.58].jpg")
>not leaving the handbrake in there as a failsafe
>omitting it for the sake of being modern
You're being angry at the wrong people; it is the manufacturers of the car who are guilty.
>>52667274
Would they work if the wheels loose traction?
I've seen cars where a massive fuckoff pad drops from the base of the car onto the road, stops fucking quickly.
Wish they where standard now.
If it happens then save the driver. The driver spent money and have the opportunity to buy another car in the future. That is the only one that makes sense from a business point of view. But it is not a likely scenario. It is not possible to imagine how a self driving car would end up in such a situation. It's like having a thought experiment involving someone flying by farting
>>52667325
>If it happens then save the driver. The driver spent money and have the opportunity to buy another car in the future.
So I can buy a car and kill anyone?
neat
>>52667295
The AI wouldn't be at fault. The real question is why are there people on the road where cars are moving at a speed where slowing down is not an option?
>>52667261
I didn't really pay attention to this. But I see what you are getting at. My viewpoint was mostly utilitarian.
Heavy fines for anyone walking on the road.
There, fixed your problem.
I think we just have some laymen here who like to put on the tech hat, such as this guy over here:
>>52667135
Point taken, but your points are only extruded from popular culture references to summaries of AI debates as well as movies and games, and conjecture from scientists. Sorry.
>>52667111
I'm not quite sure how this specific scenario would happen. Any self driving car would have a camera able to detect these people from that straight road, due to optics, and how you can see things far away in front of you. It would be wise to mane a more hypothetical example, because if the car hits anyone In that picture, that's a sentient murderer on the lose, because it damn well saw them coming.
In countries where pedestrians don't have the right of way, this issue would not be a problem.
Neural networks are optimized to whichever optimization algorithm, most simple and commonly tanh, sigm, etc, (this one tanh, as full left is - 1 and full eight is 1) and given the steering wheel can go, the algorithms optimized are not "What the programmer told it to do" but literally, given these constraints, output the single best turn to make, right now. This is how self driving cars most simply work. The best anti-collision models either require swarm intelligence, or require both agents to be aware of each other at a pre determined state, in which crashes like this would never happen, and if they did, only because of high traffic. Anything else would require a layered system which is beyond the principal of self driving cars -
Now, into the philosophy portion, what the OP wants. (cont in a sec)
>>52667011
>what if OP wasn't a faggot?
>>52667011
Question: What do we expect a human driver to try to do?
Priority 0: Not hit his own offspring (optional), priority by preference.
Priority 1: Not sacrifice himself and his passengers.
Priority 2: Not hit people he likes, priority by preference.
Priority 3: Not hit other people.
If someone outside the car can't be recognized they get lumped with "other people". The damage within each priority should then be kept to a minimum. Done.
Just kill everyone, you're doing the rest of the world a favor too.
>>52667261
Can't they just do this with real drivers right now?
>Hurr durr people don't walk on the road
Okay faggots, just imagine a motorcycle cutting you off or a bicycle jumping a light just when you are about to cross a intersection.
>>52667410
What happens in real life, realistic example vs movie example?
>>52667410
I take out my slingshot and hope he hits the wall.
>>52667153
>pedestrians don't have the right of way
dumbfuck detected
>>52667410
>motorcycle cutting you off or a bicycle jumping a light
Automated vehicles and manual ones should never mix. This should be one of the first laws introduced when driverless cars come to fruition.
>>52667011
a) won't happen
b) should kill the faggots that jump on the steet in the last second
>>52667432
Good luck making hundreds of self-driving only roads or convincing bikers, cyclist and traditional drivers to stop using the road.
>>52667011
Whether to kill or not in favor of greater good, lesser evil, least casualties etc. is not a question of logic but abstract thinking that is very subjective. Until true autonomous AI is created that doesn't require huegbox processing power and energy this hypothetical question equates to flagellation.
tl;dr you're dumb OP
>>52667410
I'd fucking stop
>>52667410
Aren't you supposed to check before you walk in all cases? The only people who are affected by this are people who don't check before they walk. A bicycle jumping a light would be guilty of negligent driving.
>>52667403
A driver might just go right though a crowd.
If people knew a self driving car would try and save as many people as possible, then they'd exploit the fact.
However if the car always protected the passengers first, they wouldn't be able to exploit it as easily.
>>52667403
No because real drivers won't stop the car because the drivers aren't at fault because the pedestrians shouldn't be on the roads. It's literally the reason why highways are bordered off and why we have sidewalks.
If people catch wind that self driving cars auto swerve they're going to start playing chicken on the highways.
>>52667431
They dont. Pedestrians literally never have the right of way anywhere except for crosswalks and residential areas. That's why we have crosswalk signs and signs which inform you of children playing or that you've entered a neighborhood or school zone. Those signs inform drivers that they must yield to children and people walking.
The pedestrian has no right of way in any other case. Them wandering on the road in other cases is a crime known as jaywalking and they are at fault if they get hit.
BAN ASSAULT PEDESTRIANS
1. No stupid self driving car meme
2. Stop being a shitty driver (I advise to start with learning how to use a clutch and stick)
3. If someone feels suicidal and jumps in front of your car at the last second, get a dash cam to prove your innocence.
There, not hard at all.
these threads are the direct equivalent of /b/s
>what if a sun made of ice colides with a sun made of lava
absolutely moronic
and stopped being funny after the first thread
there are two scenarios actually:
a. car stops normally because it's cool and everyone's happy
b. autistic man jumps in front of a car quick, breaks don't have time to stop
>>52667485
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s
>>52667087
This tbqfh families
If 2 of does cars crash who would be blamed for it? How would insurance even work then? Also, if an AI car does kill someone and it's the cars fault then what?
>>52667510
The one who's poorer is at fault.
>>52667431
>>52667485
In Russia and China, pedestrians DON'T have the right of way.
In America, they do.
Shut up.
>>52667522
And that's one of the many reasons why America is a joke.
As someone who is working in that field (highly automated cars), I believe the car should run over the pedestrians for two reasons:
First of all in most cases it is the fault of the pedestrians of not being careful walking over the street.
And another reason is that if the car would kill the driver no one is going to buy a car like that anymore. Therefore people stick with manual driving cars which are even more dangerous and deadly.
>>52667522
>hur dur I'm going to just say the opposite and tell them to shut up
>>52667508
What's your point? Yes it is true the roads used to be shared but the reason jaywalking is a crime now is because of cars. We have sidewalks for people to use that cars can't use so it's an even tradeoff.
>>52667011
The car will just obey the traffic laws. It will try to break and stop, but if there are people crossing the streets where they shouldn't. It will be human error. And not the machine's fault.
>>52667528
In China, drivers exploit this by going 20+ over just to say "fuck you I'm a car" non verbally, pretty much everywhere, not much time to cross.
In America, a certain kind of pedestrian would walk diagonally, and slow as fuck, and not give a fuck about it. Probably about most of poorer metro areas. People also piggy back onto the train in crosswalks, so cars can't go, and traffic gets blocked in busy intersections because of a different kind of dumb fuck.
>>52667011
Option D: the car stops like it should since it's a single lane and it knows not to randomly turn off the road like what you showed.
>>52667522
No they dont. List me one case from the past decade where a driver was at fault for killing someone that wandered onto the highway.
>>52667543
I've been there.
>>52667545
Either make cars slow down in densely populated areas or remove them entirely from densely populated areas.
>>52667556
Who in shit said highway? I said right of way. Lrn2rd
>>52667545
If you watched the video, the first reason why jaywalking is a crime is because there was a slur campaign by the auto industry. Jaywalking should not be a crime and automobiles should slow down in populated areas.
>>52667522
Hi i'm a traiffic engineer for a large metropolitan city in america and you're hilariously wrong.
Pedestrians have the right of way at certain unsignalized crossings (which automated cars would be made to stop at) and when their phase of a signalized intersection with a crosswalk comes up (which an automated car would be made to stop at).
A crowd of people jaywalking in roadway areas designated for vehicular travel (ie. Highways, city streets, and residential streets) have no right of way and should be using sidewalks and crosswalks
>>52667011
>what if
fuck off back to your meme sites pleb
>>52667603
This site is the biggest meme on the internet
Should a human driver kill himself and passengers in a "greater good" scenario?
>>52667634
I think it should kill any shitty tripfags for the greater good.
>>52667578
>>52667566
Here's the thing. The speed limits are set in shared areas to be 25 or under so braking is not an issue.
In highly populated areas where the speed limit is 35 or higher there are fucking sidewalks. Use the fucking sidewalks. That's why we have them. Just because people used to roads to walk in about a century ago doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do now. I mean a century ago the roads were also thinner and were basically sidewalks anyway. There's no reason for people to be walking down roads. They can walk across them when they get the right of way at stop signs, red lights, or cross walks. That is how we share the road now.
>>52667621
faggot
>>52667011
If a car would kill me for the greater good I would not buy that car, it's not reflective of human reasoning to kill yourself to save others
>>52667569
Speed is not an issue in residential or congested areas where the limit is 25 or under. Nobody should be getting hit. If they do, blame your city council.
>>52667642
Pedestrians should have the right of way today as we did for all of human existence until one century ago at the birth of jaywalking laws.
>>52667683
No they should fucking not! It's easier to stop a human than a multi-ton piece of steel and it should always, at any time have right of way.
It's fucking physics.
>>52667683
>as we did for all of human existence until one century ago
For all of human existence until one century ago no one could travel faster than a horse.
>>52667642
Residential streets are 25 mph because they are 2 way with parking on both sides with no yellow line or edge lines to separate traffic in either direction, and because there are driveways every 50 feet. Pedestrians still aren't supposed to be in the street.
The car should determine who is more valuable to the real owner of the car (the company, not the idiot sitting in it, you will never truly own anything in the future).
The bloke in the car is unlikely to buy another car soon and who knows what he'll do in the future.
The people in the crowd will be impressed by the car's tech if their lives are saved and are more likely to associate it with positive emotions (however misguided that may be) and are a better source of potential sales for the company, thus more valuable than the bloke in the car.
About as meaningful a discussion as is always booking seats from the airplane rear for better survival in a crash.
>>52667722
>You see in the news "Amazing self-driving car saves a bunch of retards that were crossing a highway and kills all its passenger in the process".
>Somehow, you now want to buy that car and be its passenger.
/g/ logic
>>52667011
I answered this question several times when you last did this thread.
If you want a philosophical discussion take it to another board.
>>52667239
WOOW
>>52667011
hurr can't happen.
>implying the car could make that turn in the first place
If it can't brake fast enough to not hit the crowd then it can't make a fucking 90 degree turn that sharp.
Fuck off.
>>52667351
>In countries where pedestrians don't have the right of way, this issue would not be a problem.
Bull fucking shit.
No pedestrian or bicyclist has a right of way on roads in most of Europe. BUT it is still the fault of the driver if they hit them, even if they are, without a shred of doubt, not responsible for the accident.
>>52667011
>hurr can't happeeennn!!!
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
it's because it's not really self driving, it's being driven by the human who programmed it's behaviour. Since the programmer is not going to include killing the passengers as an acceptable outcome, this hypothetical situation is easily dismissed.
>>52667876
I don't know where you live, but on... English is not my first language, but those stripes on the ground to mark places where pedestrians can cross the road, pedestrians do have the right of way and as the driver you are expected to pay extra attention if anyone is going to cross and let them pass.
>>52667522
>In America they do.
They do not in common sense areas. The ONLY time pedestrians have right of way is crosswalks and suburban/residential areas.
If some idiot is dicking around on a busy road and gets hit, no one is gonna blame the driver.
>>52667011
Foot-traffic should not be allowed on the same thoroughfare as selfdriving vehicles. Auto-auto lanes should be provisioned within the infrastructure.
>>52668035
do you want to destroy europe?
classic usa pig
>>52667883
Government could mandate the killing for the greater good, should women be spared above men? They might be pregnant.
>>52668003
Of course, pedestrian crossings are an exception in my country too.
>>52668052
Looks like a fucking dump.
This is how any proper modern city should look like, full of people and life.
>>52668091
All I see is fucking niggers and pakis.
I'll keep my white Czech Republic, thanks.
>>52668103
>Europe
>white
>>52668052
Kek, americans in a nutshell:
>25 years of meddeling in the middle east causing massive problems with muslim immigration into Europe
>"Hurr! Europeans are so fucking stupid and cucked, letting in the enemy!"
>Once Europe is done for or ravaged from civil war, it will be "Hurr! Europeans destroyed muh cultural heartlands! Fucking Europeans!"
And in the meanwhile they fuck themselves in the ass with rampant mexican immigration and blacks breeding like rats.
It's fucking hilarious.
>>52668120
Mexicans and blacks are far better than ISIS
The car should hit the brakes just like a real driver would, and assuming the car isn't malfunctioning in some way anyone who gets run over by it is almost certainly at fault.
>>52667519
Retard.
>>52668091
My god.
All those niggers.
You're saying you want your cities full of criminals?
>Prague
>Looks like a dump
>Proceeds to post an American city
Does the word "Irony" mean anything to Americans?
>>52668134
You apes get more Mexicans in a month than Europe gets Muslims in a year.
Also aside from that, you have this pretty huge jew problem.
>>52668134
I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that you are just as fucked as the rest of us, if not more.
And you are too fucking arrogant to even see it.
>>52667011
Make a option for that, allow the owner/driver to decide and make him responsible for the dicisions of his car.
For fucks sake, this is not very hard.
The passenger's life is above all else. All attempts will be made to save the greatest amount possible of those on the road, but NOT if it means sacrificing a passenger.
No human driver would crash into a wall and kill himself, let alone any of his passengers which are probably people close to him, to spare a (few) jaywalking retard(s).
>>52668141
Found the poorfag.
>>52668164
Why not let the passengers decide?
There are some people who would lay down their life for other people.
>>52668164
this
>should i kill the person who payed gorrilion dollars to use self driving service or jaywalking niggaz?
this is not even the question, you save who pays the most
>>52667109
Well, if we plan to integrate them with people drivers, it's not exactly gonna go well if they're only programmed for 10 scenarios
>>52668188
>There are some people who would lay down their life for other people.
Think of it this way:
One guy walking down the footpath, and a bunch of fuckwits jump in front of the car. It's only choices are to kill the guy on the footpath, or kill the bunch of people.
If you think it should kill the footpath guy, then you are a retard
>>52667493
>1. No stupid self driving car meme
this is an example of people getting stuck in a particular technological era. they learn the internet and mobile phones, then think any new significant advancements are memes. it's like how religions stopped where they were thousands of years ago instead of continuing to evolve.
HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS OVER THE MORALITY OF A TECHNOLOGY ARE MEANINGLESS OUTSIDE OF REALISTIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.
FOR BABBIES:
IF YOU THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT SHOOTING SOMEONE AND DON'T HAVE A GUN WHAT DID YOU JUST DO
>>52668216
I never said those people aren't retarded
>>52668188
>Why not let the passengers decide?
THIS IS CAR, QUICK, CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO I'M CRASHING IN 2 SECONDS, OK THANKS
>>52668188
>There are some people who would lay down their life for other people.
I find this completely unbelievable if it's a total stranger.
>>52668263
i meant it as a mandatory decision during setup
>>52668229
Self driving cars should follow the rules of the road that ALREADY EXIST.
Driving on the footpath is illegal, yes? So obviously it should stay on the road.
So the solution is always: SLAM ON THE BRAKES.
this implies you can know the outcomes with certainty, swerving off the road may only represent a 50% chance of death whereas not swerving off would represent a higher probability of causing deaths
>>52668054
>Government could mandate the killing
Ok I'm out, you don't seem to live in the real world
>>52668273
>Buy new car
>"Would you like to sacrifice your life for others?"
>"HMMMMMMMMMMMMM no thank you"
>Assassin breaks into your car and change the setting
>Jumps in front of your car on your way to work
>You ded now
>>52668276
I agree
But these retards are saying that it should ignore the rules of the road in order to maximise the number of lives it can save
>>52668273
>i meant it as a mandatory decision during setup
Setup question 1:
In situation a, what should the car do?
>400 hours later
Setup question 90041:
In situation a, with side category b, when it's raining but not very cold and there's a baby in a pram on the sidewalk but a slightly older toddler in the road...
Choices are stupid.
Follow the laws of the road. If something jumps out infront of you, the self driving car can react faster and be safer overall so worrying about decision making is pointless. The 200ms faster braking, and the efficient braking allows for a reduction in death and injury for the stupid fuck that thought the road was safe
>>52668312
>Setup question 90041:
And then the ghost in the machine kicks in, and your car ignore every single rule and just plough through the masses.
>>52667011
>can't happeeennn!!!
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
Are you fucking retarded?
>>52667011
Priorities are programmed, morality has no value in the discussion.
1. Avoid accident best of its ability, this covers most if not all scenarios.
2. Should the car be unable to stop an accident, its driver and passengers are first priority.
Done.
Some people will still die due to hitting pedestrians (thus is inevitable), but far less than today, which is an advancement.
I saw a guy on 75 highway at a 6 lane per side (so 12 lanes of traffic and only a thin concrete barrier in middle so no resting between sides) try to run across it with 70mph traffic. He was hit and killed. Look it up, Plano TX, within last few months.
You can't expect every situation to come out rosey and perfect, but id rather have a computer that scans 100 times a seconds and evaluates the best possible outcome than a fellow human making a snap judgement.
>>52668273
>Want to take some new buddies for a ride
>They get into the car
>Car speakers start up
>HELLO NEW PASSENGER
>IN THE CASE THAT THERE'S A CRASH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SACRIFICE YOURSELF IN CASE IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD?
>Buddies feel really uncomfortable riding that car now, regardless of answer
And I sure as Hell wouldn't get in the car if you get to decide for your passengers during setup (unless you can somehow prove to me that it's to save the passengers), same way I don't get into a car with a shitty driver.
>>52668342
This is also what I keep saying.
All this shit is meaningless distraction from the real issue: Self driving cars will save 10,000 lives a year, just in the US, at least.
No matter what a car 'decides', I'm 100s of times safer letting it handle things. It's like not playing the lottery, you're technically richer if you don't play the lottery but it's difficult for people to accept this.
>>52668396
>Self driving cars will save 10,000 lives a year,
How do you know?
Do you have any empirical evidence to back that up?
>>52667011
Programmers won't be charged with any crimes with the current laws as they can't be held responsible for as individuals since they are a part of a corporation.
None of these situations would even be illegal as the programmer just programmed the reactions.
A firearms manufacturer won't get charged with a crime for creating a gun that was used for a crime.
>>52668467
>A firearms manufacturer won't get charged with a crime for creating a gun that was used for a crime.
the gun doesn't decide to shoot on its own.
>>52668429
not him, but yes
people are retarded and computers actually do what we tell them too.
>>52668429
It is a number I pulled out of my rectum.
However, given the current track record of self driving cars: Zero accidents over 1.8 million miles of road, I can extrapolate that out to mean that at least 30% of vehicular fatalities can be avoided.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is-ridiculously-safe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
34,000 deaths a year in the US caused by traffic accidents. I consider a third of those to be avoidable.
You could check to see how many people die to sleepy truckers, women texting or doing their hair while driving, drunk driving, or otherwise inattentive driving (IE all avoidable by self driving cars, good luck getting a car drunk) and come up with a similar figure.
So I'm pulling the number from my ass based on current death statistics combined with current self driving car safety records (too small to be relevant but it's there).
It's a low-ball estimate. If everything was self driving I'd actually think it'd save 25,000 lives in the US every year, let alone hundreds of thousands of non-fatal accidents.
There are always unavoidable accidents, like dipshits running in traffic, but generally people don't play in traffic.
https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advice/top-causes-of-car-accidents/
Throw in this. How many of the top 25 apply only to humans?
>>52668537
I counted 17/25 are directly human bullshit.
I imagine a computer would handle bad weather conditions like water/snow/fog much better too.
>>52667011
The same thing that happens when someone jumps in the way of a subway or a cargo train.
Vehicle continues intended path, passenger is not liable.
>>52668537
It's telling that the greatest drop in vehicular fatalities was caused by seatbelts.
>>52668570
This
/thread
>>52667011
Come up with a not retarded thought experiment and mire people will humour you.
This is stupid because you have to actively assume they've programmed in something that will cause the car to kill you. Software is buggy, so try explaining the random bug that veers your car off the road and kills its passenger.
Not only that, but it's taking a risk by veering off the road cause people usually use the sidewalk. In short the whole premise is dumb and you're a fag.
>>52668598
>Software is buggy
So we should NEVER get in an autocar.
gotcha.
>>52668598
I think it's one of two things:
1. People scared of new technology, and the media exploiting this by producing clickbait and whatnot to get people to read about it. "Oh really, this is scary Teehee shared on facebook"
2. Actual industry pushback for selfdriving cars. Truck drivers and taxi drivers unions are seriously threatened and so a campaign to make self driving cars seem dangerous is not out of the question.
>>52668623
People are more buggy, that's the entire point.
>>52668623
Normal cars are already full of software which might be buggy.
I'll stick to my bike :v
>>52668635
>People are more buggy, that's the entire point.
no the point is I can see your ass in jail if you kill my kid.
if a car does, you end up free.
>>52668522
>What are bugs
The shitposting on /g/ should be enough evidence that computers does not always do as told.
>>52668537
>I consider
>I think
You still haven't proved that automatic cars will cause less accidents than manually driven ones.
>>52668623
I have to kill you now, it's for the greater good Dave.
>>52668659
>cager culture
>thinking people actually get punished for smearing their windshield
http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/01/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
>braking is not an option
>turn left is not an option
>kill the motor is not an option
>get into reverse mode is not an option
The people blocking the road are protesters and you should just plow right thru them then file a lawsuit against their families for damages to your vehicle.
>>52668623
Yeah, but not a bug that's going to veer me into the side of the road killing me, my passengers and bystanders.
>>52668635
Oh definitely, the media will fear mongering anything. Look at GMOs for example.
I'm glad those industries are getting pressure. Truck drivers get paid a lot of fucking money for having no qualifications other than a high school diploma, and taxi drivers are already losing out to uber anyway.
Option D: the car attempts to break as quickly as is still safe, and if the pedestrian gets hit, then that's their fucking fault for being in the middle of the freeway.
Like somebody else said, anything else is way too open to abuse. You could legally murder somebody indirectly by jumping in front of their self-driving car at the right moment.
>>52668737
>and taxi drivers are already losing out to uber anyway.
france and italy outright banned uber.
>>52668664
>You still haven't proved that automatic cars will cause less accidents than manually driven ones.
7.1.
That's how many people die in the US per 1 billion km driven. 621 million miles.
You're right, 1.8 million to 621 million is such a small ratio.
200 (reported) accidents total per billion miles in the UK.
So yes, 1.8 million is really too small.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf
So that's 0.4 accidents per 2 million of human drivers against 0 accidents per 2 million of self driving.
This is a meaningless comparison, but only because of the scale of testing.
In a few years when it's still 0 accidents and the number of miles has gone up, the numbers will work out better.
Keep in mind though, the self driving car in google's test HAS been in accidents. It's just they've all been caused by human drivers.
So that's 13 minor accidents caused by humans per 1.8 million miles to zero by the self driving car. So does this count? I mean humans have been causing more accidents.
The numbers aren't overwhelming, but they're indicative. Mix in qualitative factors and you can have reasonable estimates.
I can't really provide anything more convincing because this is like 'okay you say wet things are wet but you haven't proved that' levels of resistance here.
>>52668297
>implying assassin can't do this if this option is not available
>>52668664
>>>52668522
>>What are bugs
>The shitposting on /g/ should be enough evidence that computers does not always do as told.
Your phrasing show how very little you know about software engineering and computers in general.
Bugs happen because computers do exactly what you tell them, not because they are sentient beings out to frustrate you ins some personal call of duty vendetta.
As a software engineer that has written his share of bugs, and solved plenty of my own and others, it is not the computer's fault.
Lastly, don't throw out the babby (when formed) with the bath water. Just because some bugs happen doesn't mean there isn't a SIGNIFICANT advantage to computers. And if you believe otherwise, stop fucking shitposting on the internet and replace your machine with an abacus you retard.
>>52668208
That's not how any of this works bro.
>>52667011
No, just let natural selection do its work.
>>52669247
>Automatic cars are good because humans are faulty
>Automatic cars will run on software created by humans
>Who are faulty
And this is exactly why I will never own an automatic car.
Do what the passenger would do: run over the fags standing on the way. What else is there to it? It's the owner's car, it should respect its owner above all
If legal issues are an issue, you could let the driver take control and prosecute him if necessary. Chances are however that it's the pedestrians' fault for standing in the way
>>52667011
The car should be bound to normal traffic laws, if anyone get's in the way it's there fault. Just like if someone just stood still on traintracks
>>52669320
Until manually-driven cars are outlawed by 2030, at least.
You know it'll happen eventually.
>>52669336
>2030
autocars won't even be ALLOWED on the street before then
>>52669320
You're fucking retarded.
>>52669352
They already are.
>>52669352
I dunno, anon. At the rate we're progressing, 14 years is a long time. How about 2050, then?
It's going to happen sometime in your lifespan.
>>52667011
Ideally it will just STOP. Failing that, it should run over the stupid faggots in the road that aren't supposed to be there. Roads are for cars, not people. "Pedestrians have the right of way" has always been backwards thinking.
>>52669352
Well self driven cars are already allowed on the road.
The attitude for luddites is "Until one kills someone". these luddites miss the real magic of self driving cars though: There's a real chance this will never happen.
>>52667011
>Why is /g/ incapable of hypothetic scenarios discussion
What if... now bear with me.
You're going to have to take this idea seriously, because...
Well, if you're not ready for this
"What if"
Then you're in for a doozy
Keep your pants together and get ready to do some deep thinking...
Ready?
Okay, I'll say it
...
WHAT IF...
...and this might shock your sensitive systems, but
WHAT IF...
...
What if hypothetical scenario discussion is a meme?
>>52669372
>I dunno, anon. At the rate we're progressing
FRANCE AND ITALY (130 million of people combined) just outright BANNED UBER in their countries, pushed by taxi unions.
many other european countries are now pushing in that direction.
and UBER has HUMAN drivers.
Now Imagine how fucking strong CAR FACTORIES unions are, and how hard can they lobby, even in USA.
>>52669407
What the fuck does Uber have to do with self-driving cars?
The rest of the world will just follow what America does anyway, like it always has.
>>52667011
The car would slam the brakes like anyone would do, few people would have the reaction time to assess the situation and swerve.
>>52669369
People can't even agree how the software of the car should act in different scenarios.
Software will never be perfect and fault free. Ever.
The moment that an automatic car doesn't react in accordance to the "set of rules" set up for it, and happens to kill someone, is the moment that the card house will come tumbling down, and people lose faith in the project.
>>52669425
>What the fuck does Uber have to do with self-driving cars?
unions in transportation and car manufacturing are strong.
just imagine lorry drivers crossing their arms on the highway and making infinite queues.
because you are proposing robot driven lorries in the long term, so that's 100k people on the streets.
>>52668208
Did you even read?
Holy fuck.
Plow the fuck right through them, law is law. Driverless cars are meant to make the road safer by not breaking any laws, if a pedestrian breaks the law, well, fucko, you knew the rules, now you're breaking them. Prepare to die.
>>52669446
in europe you get in jail if you hurt jaywalkers
>>52669438
This question is for automation in general: Has there been any word on what's going to happen to the people who are put out of jobs because of it? Or will they just have to suck it up and starve in the streets when it turns out there is no jobs for them to get?
>>52669470
>Or will they just have to suck it up and starve in the streets when it turns out there is no jobs for them to get?
yes this is the future.
see this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>>52669433
>>Software will never be perfect and fault free. Ever.
It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be better than humans.
And at 30k dead each year in murrica alone, that's not exactly a hard fucking bar to lower.
>>52669407
>pushed by taxi unions
The shit those drivers pulled was barbaric, I can only wonder if they inadvertently boosted uber's popularity by their actions.
>>52667011
If a group of faggots are jaywalking like that then the car should run them over.
>>52669438
Here's a protip to lorry driver strikers: Don't strike against your replacements.
>>52669438
>unions in transportation and car manufacturing are strong.
Fantastic, so a bunch of butthurt faggots get to literally delay the future.
I can't wait until the baby boomers die.
TRAIN ANALOGY
A driverless car should be able to detect things in the way at whatever distance it needs to stop for it's fastest speed.
If you somehow jump in front of it at a distance shorter than this well then fuck you. That's your problem.
>>52669497
wat
>>52669497
Thanks mods. Sick of this shit too huh?
>>52669497
>TRAIN ANALOGY
what happens if I quote it?
<p style="font-size:80px;">TRAIN ANALOGY</p>
What a retarded question.
The self driving car should behave in the way that I find agreeable, otherwise I won't buy it.
>>52669457
In which 3rd world Europe country is that? 2 years ago a kid, here around the neighbourhood, fell of his bike while crossing a 4 lane road, a car hit him, and he died. The driver of the car didn't get fined or anything as he wasn't the one in fault. This was in Belgium btw.
>>52669547
It would be very painful
>>52669497
>TRAIN ANALOGY
>>52669547
nothing
>>52669578
>>In which 3rd world Europe country is that?
>In line with the majority opinion, the Court of Milan, made it clear that "The mere fact that the pedestrian has crossed outside of the space dedicated pedestrian crossing does not justify the waiver of liability of the driver of the moped", butalso it recognized the configurability of contributory negligence under art. 1227 co. 1 cc
In light of the findings of fact made, the court held to charge pedestrian contributory negligence minimal, estimated at 10% and that, in view of the limited evidence provided by the driver damaging.
>>52669562
everyone should program their own self driving car based on their moral viewpoints
you should be held responsible of the actions of your car
<p style="font-size:80px;">TRAIN ANALOGY</p>
>>52667011
70% high-school dropouts straight from reddit, 20% inbred straight from tumblr, 9% ignorant "my opinion subverts reality!" faggots. The remaining 1% can't possibly discuss anything through the flood of beyond-retarded comments and ridiculously false clickbait postspam. You are obviously in the first category yourself.
>>52669596
that's a big font size
>>52669497
>>can't happen
>yes but the question is, WHAT IF?
A self driving car should behave like a human driven car.
A human would stop the car so the speed upon impact is low or the accident won't happen.
The problem with human drivers is that they focused on their phone and cannot stop before people are in the way.
Killing the person who paid for the car should never happen.
If it was programmed in, the car might kill the driver even though there is no people on the road.
Here. Fixed your shitty "hypothetical scenario"
And if there is more than one person jumping in front of a car, the car should still stop.
I'm not gonna pay for a device, that can decide to kill me.
Crash into the pedestrians (who are probably at fault anyway) and let their family sue the manufacturer.
>>52669614
>driver of the moped
Did you even read your own quote anon? Mopeds don't go over 25km/h, which means they should be able to come to a complete stop in under 2-3 meters, or slow down enough to not cause any serious injuries, which also means that the driver of a moped should be able to avoid these types of accident. This thread is about driverless cars.
![Young_theodore_kaczynski[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Iwzjpnz.jpg "Young_theodore_kaczynski[1].jpg")
>>52667508
Its another example of freedom compromised by technology.
>>52669624
>Nobody's gonna program their own car
>some people sell pre-programmed cars
>buy an ayn rand car
>late for work
>car runs over hobos
>>52669688
>>52668208
AI would not need hardcoded "if this, then that" statements. It would make a decision on-the-fly from what it observes
>>52669699
>moped
a moped in italy is a scooter.
it can have 125cc or even 250 and pass 100km/h.
>>52668091
>70% of the available area used by maybe 30 people while 30% used by 1000
>>52669737
>It would make a decision on-the-fly from what it observes
how is this different than "if this then that"?
>>52669753
Do you even understand what a neural network is?
>>52669764
Why are you quoting yourself?
>>52667011
Because hypothetical scenarios aren't technology.
We don't care if a self driving car should kill its passengers, we care about writing the software that makes the car run over the horde of students; about designing the hardware that crushes them.
You're a fucking retard. gb2 reddit
>>52669669
optimized it for you
>>52669764
a more nuanced and effective way of performing if this then that scenarios
>>52669776
I am not you fucking shitflinger monkey
>>52669653
>>52669796
I wonder what the next part of this image could be
>>52669646
Case in point
>>52669753
>>52668208
>>52669797
>>52669800
You can't even post that fast you retard.
>>52669653
FOR YOU
>>52667292
This. A selfdriving car should strictly follow the traffic rules, not try heroics. Jaywalkers are at fault here.
>>52669822
>>52669796
5th option.
Put the car into a rear slide, the increase in contact area will catch more pedestrians.
>>52669909
you can just open the doors
>>52667111
>You have no idea what equations the computer is going to run to decide what the "correct" option will be.
Whatever equations the humans programmed into it, so it was always a human decision.
>>52667011
In what situation do you have a crowd of people crossing the road and the car is traveling fast down the road towards them?
>>52669974
Spontanious protesters.
>>52669930
that reminds me of a joke where a peasant visits parisand gets in a cab
the cab is a mercedes, he asks what the radiator cap is
the driver says it's sights to aim for englishmens and krauts
and begin pretending to run over people, turning at the last second shouting "gah missed it"
the third time he hears a thud
turns around and see the peasant with the door open
"they had to give me a fucking beginner, you're lucky I got this one"
>>52670002
I don't get it
>>52670042
the joke is peasants are psychotic racists
So I guess /pol/ are peasants
OP is a retarded faggot.
see:
>>52667011
>>52667111
for proof
The vehicle should always "sacrifice itself" since the passengers take on the responsibility for the vehicle when they get in it. A pedestrian isn't riding around in a 4k pound death machine, they shouldn't be put at any undue risk under any scenario.
>>52667111
>neckbeard paranoia
>still wants the neckbeards to discuss his topic after he admits he doesnt even understand it
Penis
