Could /his/ enlighten me on what the likely outcome of this situation would be and the actions of each machine? Or if it has gotten the philosophy behind each machines programed beliefs wrong.
>>1373453
The Nietzschean truck comes by and crashes through both cars.
>>1373460
With no survivors.
>>1373453
they hit their fucking breaks
>>1373453
One car can always pick the pedestrian up. If one of the cars don't have enough room they can always put the main in the back trunk.
Therefore the deontological car makes the most sense.
![1467643530-20160704[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/sW6KL6p.png "1467643530-20160704[1].png")
>>1373460
Thats the canon outcome.
>>1373453
Paradox at panel 5: The deontological car would have to reconcile the fact that it is forced to kill as a consequence of either action. Knowing this, they would have to have programmed a resolution following a utilitarian framework (using the number of killings (I won't say "murder" because that's a different argument), and thus both cars would arrive at the same conclusion to kill the pedestrian.
But that also complicates matters, because then it would be a head-on collision, and each car would have to calculate the projected casualties thereof, reaching presumably identical conclusions (unless their metrics were not identical, which would even *further* complicate matters), and recalculate based on those odds.
Ultimately, then, it's a problem of having too little information about the relative speeds of each car, and the result of their head-on collision, without which we cannot know whether more or less people would be killed if one car swerved to avoid the deaths of six instead of five.
Given perfect information, we would be able to factor in quality of life post-accident for all parties and adjust for those details as well, so unless we (or the cars) have omniscience, there will always be too little information to make perfect decisions, and some algorithm must be applied.
>>1373476
Okay, go to 0:12. Watch the guy fling himself into the bus. Now, do it again, and keep your eye on the guy at the bench.
What has this man seen in his life where he watches, sentinel-like and gargoylesque, as another man brains himself against obviously solid and firmly shut bus doors?
I respect this man, and I fear this man.
This man is the hero of our Polk county tale.
>>1373797
You don't ride public transit in the US often enough if this sort of thing would shock you.
So long as you are far enough away that you can't get hurt, you just watch the crazy unfold.
I've seen a guy shit and then sit in his own shit on a bus. Just watched it happen, then got off on the next stop. No point in reacting, just keep calm and hope it all ends well when you're on the bus.
>>1373453
The deontological truck wouldn't consider the consequences. It would swerve regardless. The utilitarian car would know this and run over at full speed the lone man to spare the five inside from the pursuing Nietzschean truck.
Do these cars not have brakes or something?
>"Stirner Saab, take me to the cinema"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uavJDBP4YeQ
>>1374922
That's not the problem. It's all speculation about theoretical scenarios that might put a truly self-driving car in jeopardy between protecting it's occupant or, in an accident, choosing to save more lives by sacrificing it's occupant. For example, a self driving car driving at 80 km/h suddenly facing a group of children running out on the street. Does it apply the brakes at full force and still hit the children, or does it steer itself into a tree, killing the 'driver' but saving the children?
We don't have fully self driving cars yet, and those kinds of scenarios are going to be extremely rare.
So far it's mostly mental masturbation.
>>1373460
Based
>>1374947
Who's the ugly bloke in the back? Not Schopenhauer, the other one.
