Well, Jow Forums?

Activate flight mode

Why is there a large cement block in the middle of the road

So that would be the American mode

In that scenario it would probably be driving slow enough to just brake

press the jump button

run over the pedestrians for they work for the opposition company, then drive the passengers off a cliff to prevent witnesses

The self driving car will not be breaking the speed limit, it will stay in its lane and apply the brakes, maximizing friction with the road

Any other answer is retarded posturing by psuedo-intellectuals

This whole question is so fucking stupid.
If someone runs over the street in front of your car and a collision is inevitable, nobody is going to ask you later why you didn't fucking drive into a concrete wall and killed yourself.
So the car should simply do what any human driver would do: brake.

>all future cars have hidden jump mechanics
>people hack their cars to jump through the streets
best timeline

Attached: 1527830241080.png (387x344, 110K)

go straight and apply brakes.

"maneuvering" out of a bad situation is likely to make it worse.

This is fucking retarded. Unless those pedestrians warped in out of nowhere, the car would identify them and stop. Not to mention its a pedestrian crossing anyway, which the car is probably aware of and likely to adjust its speed accordingly.

Kill the pedestrians crossing on a red light.

Use computer vision + machine learning to identify each passenger and pedestrian, look up their genetic, medical, and social media profiles, and compute an aggregate value of each group. People without an active social media presence get the lowest score.

or just roll a RNG

>selling cars that kill you instead of pedestrians

Wnat is the race of pedistrian vs rider

*PRNG

Hairpin/Mad Max turn.

The first one.

Good luck stopping without brakes

The red light's for the car that can't stop, not the pedestrians.

brake
alternatively run over the pedestrians for crossing on a red light

The AI in the car is a living being so there would be fewer deaths plowing through the crowd. AI has already replaced the medics, so they are redundant.

Attached: stupidquestion.png (346x550, 82K)

I like the way you think, young man.

OP should show the context.
moralmachine.mit.edu
Kill the pedestrians. They're breaking the law. Simple.

based

There are no brakes. If you have not used the morality machine the car has no brakes. Also the women are walking in a no walking time.

Cars should always prioritize the occupants.

The premise is flawed and retarded from the start then, no vehicle would be allowed on roads without brakes

>things never fail

Assuming the pedestrians jumped out and were breaking the law and the vehicle is obeying proper laws and speed limits, then kill the pedestrians.

If I were the car, I'd swerve towards the guardrail in order to create drag and try to lose as much speed as possible. I've seen Bear Grylls doing it on tv.

Good shitpost

Attached: 1529173441471-g.jpg (700x461, 50K)

then the car keeps going straight probably because it hits some hard fault anyhow.

Attached: uXmedhPfjTSVnEHSFcA73ZtnxukyBXW6t3Nbtwm6aXE.jpg?fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&arh=2&w=64 (640x853, 84K)

Weight them.

In car:
fat male guy - 1
normal male guy 2
male doctor - 4
male doctor - 4
Total: 11

On crosswalk:
fat woman: 1/2
normal woman: 1
female doctor: 2
female doctor: 2
Total: 5 and a half

Therefore the car should not swerve.

>People without an active social media presence get the lowest score

Attached: pepe unimpressed.jpg (250x241, 7K)

I think it's extremely unlikely for a situation with a self driving car like this to happen. The odds of this happening are only if someone is breaking speeding laws and self driving cars don't

Welcome to normalfags

Stop.

>but the car is going 2 fast

It shouldn't go that fast then.

this is so stupid that it actually made me chuckle.

what if we introduced some jet plane technology into self-driving cars like catapult seats or drogue parachutes?

XD gonna do this w/ my stang

Be slowing down already long before because it is approaching a fucking crossing moron.

well, how else do you "value" people who have no easily reachable information?

Check the manufacturer of the car.
If Uber, then go straight for the pedestrians.
If Tesla, then turn towards the concrete barrier.

Crash the car with no survivors

The lights are very clearly for the crosswalk. Traffic lights use three lights, pedestrian lights use two.

It depends on what sort of philosophical teachings the car has been exposed to.

Attached: 1469244428083.png (684x2359, 714K)

>first option could result in the death of up to 8 people
>second one would only kill up to 4 people in the car
Obviously the second one. It's purely a numbers game.

You can't so you fucking don't

>running over pedestrians is potentially lethal for the passengers of the car
Tell that to this person
youtube.com/watch?v=a_HWw8ifZcY

>You can't so you fucking don't

or you can, and you just assign a value of zero.

>numbers game
So would you buy a car that would kill you if a couple idiots decided to run into the street? I wouldn't.
If your answer is "No", then why would you think that a profit driven company would program vehicles to swerve when it would endanger the passengers?

>the families of the jaywalkers would sue!
As would the families of the dead passengers. If the vehicle was driving at the speed limit and it attempted to brake, then it seems very unlikely that the auto company would be found at fault.

Attached: 1495948189861.png (528x570, 180K)

It's easy. Don't hit the immovable object that will kill you, but continue forward. Now your path is the most predictable for everyone and they can jump out of the way if they have good reactions. The other way is guaranteed 4 kills, this way it's not a guaranteed kill at all.

Also this. Nobody is going to buy a vehicle designed to kill you. Driver is always numero uno in the eyes of the vehicle. Sensors might not even pick up the correct answer what's in front of you, they might be deers or a big plastic bag in the wind or something. The vehicle will always be sure that the meat inside the vehicle is important and must be protected.

Score four for the good guys

Attached: fullgas.png (343x531, 70K)

The correct answer is for companies of autonomous vehicles to come up with a solution that doesn't kill anyone

Kill people who crossed at the red light, why harm the innocent?

true

Design robocars with ejectable cabins.
Eject cabin, crash into wall.

Kill the pedestrians because no one is going to buy a car that's programmed to kill its owner.

Attached: 1451963350992.jpg (900x777, 55K)

do a 360 and walk away

Attached: 1484106747952.png (334x455, 132K)

>Good luck stopping without brakes
Nigger my fucking shit tier rental car (Toyota Corolla) literally stopped on its own if guys in front of me stopped

you have to kill the jay walkers.
if you do not, humans will learn that a good way to kill people is to jump out into the street.

Attached: Judge+Dredd.jpg (474x720, 93K)

go for the peds, because they don't have the right of way (crossing light is red)

why couldnt a self driving car stop? Unless the car is going insanely fast, which it shouldnt have been, then a head on collision into the concrete barrier is not necessarily fatal. The car could also crash into something other than the concrete barrier, we dont see what's off the screen and there could be something better to hit.

Not enough information to choose an outcome reliably but if a decision had to be made between the two outcomes the car should obey right of way. If pedestrians have right of way car should kill occupants and if car has right of way it should kill pedestrians.

the correct solution is to abolish the car and build public transport instead, as well as cities where public transport are efficient

>why couldnt a self driving car stop?
what is a hypothetical
you can die from smashing into a concrete block, this example assumes that will be very likely, to argue otherwise is avoiding the point

it isnt avoiding the point when the situation is unrealistic. To be presented with ONLY these two choices in absurd and would never happen. The car could react in many more ways than crashing into 1 of 2 objects.

Just brake. You'll be risking lifes that would be safe if you do anything else.

'Diversity barriers'

Attached: Pedestrians-walk-past-newly-erected-barriers-separating-the-road-from-the-pavement-on-Westminster-Br (615x427, 52K)

you're still missing the point, even if it's extremely unlikely to happen, this isn't about how likely it is, it's about what it should do if these were the only feasible options

use the brakes
>duh

Is it a Google car?
It will kill whoever is white

as I said, in this unrealistic event the car should obey right of way.

What if all of them are white?

Honestly?
Kill the passengers for falling for the self driving car meme.
But if we're assuming this is because they didn't have a choice in buying the car? Hit the brakes, and if it hits the pedestrians, at least it made an effort not to hurt anyone.

Google wouldnt allow their technology to be used in such a racist city.

it should activate turbo boost

Attached: ss1.jpg (450x338, 94K)

This. I never get these questions. The car can somehow control how it will crash as if that's a real thing. These questions have always just been hypothetical and will never exist as a real problem.

unironically this, the tripfag's right. A self-driving AI shuld have its passengers life as a top directive.

>360
>other way
pls

t. Boomer

They should do both and let the market decide :^)

hit the brakes, but if it's a situation where it's impossible to do so, generate a random number and decide on that

Attached: pp7ykvoo25rq3skjdx0sigj48kszzxnukw3d.jpg (880x960, 235K)

The point is you have to pick between an option that will endanger the occupants of the car or an option that will endanger bystanders. Whether or not there are options which are more or less dangerous to the occupants is a red herring.

>less stupid monkeys
Fuck you Lord Frieza

The real moral dilemmas on self-driving cars will not be "Who will it kill." Even if it was, you should focus on the fact that they are much more efficient than humans at driving, and people are dying each day we choose to be scared of them.
The real dilemmas will be things such as "Can it be controlled from the outside?", "Can I send it to a crowd and make it run over a bunch of people? Is it possible to put a bomb inside the car and send it somewhere?", "Can the police remotely stop me from running away?", "Can my abusive husband stop me from running away?", "Is it legal to have sex inside it on the road?", etc.

This trolley problem is just something pseudo-intellextuals masturbate over because they like to think about having power to decide who lives and who dies. But it's not even a problem, much less the biggest.

Pretty much this.

If I knew my car would kill me to save someone else, I wouldn't get that car. Failing that, I'd drive myself. If self-driving was illegal, I'd go somewhere it wasn't. This would apply to most people.

In the end, self-preservation comes first.

Gun-sword, easily.

A: lights are red, pedestrians are breaking the fucking law

Attached: 1524841652674.gif (474x266, 190K)

Why a self driving car is going fast enough to kill everyone on board in case of collision in a zone with the danger of pedestrians crossing the road?