Self-driving car "morals"

China is obviously defect/defect, but is Japan cooperate/cooperate or cooperate/defect?

>Japan
THEY will never buy this shit

>Japan
they hate car owners

Chinese are subhuman bug people

You have to remember that in the question they answered, the pedestrians were in the wrong.
It's obvious the pedestrians should be run over, they 100% deserved it.

based china

Attached: 1525373957329.png (598x538, 500K)

Why don’t they just make better brakes and choose whatever path will optimize braking efficiency?

why does everything about the ethics of self driving cars devolve into this dumbass question?
what about stuff like these:
>should a self-driving car be allowed on the road if there aren't any humans inside? if so, how would you restrict this? if not, what's stopping people from weaponizing them in some way?
>what's the best way to integrate self driving cars into the world? they have to share the road with flawed human drivers. Would it be better for them to drive like everyone else? Should a more perfect machine be subject to the same laws of traffic that only exist to govern human drivers?
>if and when self driving cars become the mainstream, should people be allowed to drive them manually?

Why would you import trash lol

No, I think it is the average across all scenarios, not just pedestrians crossing on a red light.

Is Honda actually going to make a car that calculates morality when it's about to crash?

That's what the cockroaches in china eat

The passenger should always be the one at risk, they made the decision to get inside the machine. Your argument of economics is irrelevant.

Attached: what do.png (751x634, 139K)

Uh, is stopping not an option? Is this a situation where if the car tries to stop it'll be hit from behind?

The car has no breaks.

Well that's silly.

I prefer the Revenant version

>buy expensive top of the line car meant to save you
>kills you to save some random pedesteran
Nice advertisement there.

It should steer into the jersey barriers on its right. It’ll kill the adult, but might spare the child.

Attached: DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png (1353x976, 328K)

It would be a pretty big twist after decades of development of driver/passenger crash protection that self-driving cars would then just kill the passengers anyways.

I have the feeling this debate is going to end in the favor of pedestrians. As I see it, you chose to trust your life to a self-driving car. The pedestrian didn't. Ergo if one of you has to die to the car, it should be the one who put his life in the car's hands.

people won't want to buy a machine that is programmed to kill you

Use the fucking brakes.

Then don't buy a self-driving car. Pedestrians are never going to allow a car to drive on the road next to them that's programmed to kill them instead.

As a guy from Norway, pedestrians are saints. Seriously, our courts openly admit that if you hit a pedestrian with a car in any way, and they make a case out of it, you're going to fucking lose. If a pedestrian threw himself out in front of a car, you bet your sweet ass that car-owner is going to lose that suit. If you touch a pedestrian with a car in any way shape or form, you're paying for it.

What is stopping the people in the vehicle from making a decision?

Na, Japan loves their cars but they see the responsibility more in the driver than in the pedestrian, probably because they have shitty narrow roads that they expect people to walk on instead of having pavements.
You have to take these factors into account too.

Not let itself get in that situation.

Fucking Canada, very damn time.

Considering Japan's problems with truck-kun I'm not surprised

Attached: [HorribleSubs] Zombieland Saga - 01 [720p]_00:01:14_03.jpg (1280x720, 167K)

This is such a meme question.

It doesn't even takle the most important parts.

1. The car will always have difficulty telling apart objects. So it's response to something in the road should be similar no matter how many people are in the way.
2. The car will always have difficulty telling things a part so the car should take the same action for a man or a deer or a wheelchair shaped cardboard box.
3. The two possible scenario are that it either doesn't have time to stop in which case it will hit something solid regardless of it's choice or that it can stop and there is no choice to make.

But in the first scenario just because the car can't prevent a collision doesn't mean the human/deer can't. So that car should just drive forward letting people dive out of the way rather than last second verring to the side and killing people who were able to dodge.

Imagine the reality where the car swerves into a tree anytime it's sensors detect a plastic bag or a raccoon as a toddler.

Prove me wrong

luckily the rest of the world isn't as retarded as norway

To recycle it for cheap materials, dipshit.

What if the car just stops?

China is right.
An ideal self-driving car would never put the live of a pedestrian in risk. If the life of the pedestrian is in risk, it's because the pedestrian himself created this scenario.
The passenger should not be punished by the mistake of the pedestrian.

While exaggerating, this person has a point. Self-driving cars need to only be one thing: Predictable. It doesn't matter who they prioritise, so long as you know in advance so you can act accordingly. Personally I think they should react in a way suitable for a human driver. IE; they attempt to minimise damage to whatever the situation is, they don't change the situation with an active choice.
If someone goes in the road without looking the car should minimise damage to this fucking idiot, without changing what made them stupid. The self driving car will react faster and brake more efficiently than a human, and more importantly, will never stop looking. It'll never get tired or distracted and will reliably react, and that's it's main advantage. It's drivers not looking or paying attention that cause driver caused accidents. Reducing those will be the primary benefit of self-driving cars.
You can't really do anything about people going in the street, and if people all understand that a car will try and stop but it's not going to swerve to avoid you unless it's safe to do so, you'll still stay out of the road or get darwin'd.

>If the life of the pedestrian is in risk, it's because the pedestrian himself created this scenario.
Such as by trying to cross the street at a crosswalk in broad daylight.

Source: currently in Shanghai

(You)

People are just obsessed with unlikely hypothetical situations along the lines of "it is inevitable that someone will die, but it's possible to choose who will die, so we've gotta establish who we will choose". The reality is that such a scenario is next to impossible, but people focus on that rather than what they should; trying to arrange things so no-one dies.

But nothing is ever ideal. An ideal road/footpath system would see to it that human/vehicle collisions were impossible, for instance.

Honestly, even if Norway goes overboard with the "drivers are always at fault" attitude, that's still the better general approach. In a collision between a person and a car the person is basically always worse off/potentially dead, compared to passengers mildly inconvenienced and the car dented a little. A collision between a vehicle and a wall or road barrier is naturally going to favour the wall, and the car may not be driveable afterwards, but the passengers stand a reasonable chance of at least surviving, if not necessarily being unharmed. Of course you still want pedestrians to not be fucking idiots about how they cross the road, but under most circumstances it is still possible for a car to avoid killing a stupid pedestrian without putting the passenger at any additional risk.

I can't agree with you on this. Chinese drivers have zero regard for life. They'll run over children at little faster than a walking pace without even stopping to see what they ran over and then just drive over the bodies in the road.
The only way to have safe road usage is if everyone has responsibilities so that we cover each others mistakes. Seeing the pedestrian is much more vulnerable in the majority of situations it makes sense to prioritize the pedestrian's life.

>Pedestrian
>Can step out of the way
>Driver
>Mercilessly executed by his own trusted possession

Fast moving are dangerous by nature, the moment you step in a fast moving vehicle you choosed to take the risk of possibly dying. Therefore pedestrian should have the priority imo.

>tfw you can assassinate people by just walking in front of their car

>making up a hypothetical situation with an unlikely scenario to prove a point
Nice strawman faggot

>Buy a self driving car
>It puts my life over people who did not buy the self driving car
Based China. Fuck pedestrians!

Peds are usually 99% at fault usually

A self driving car should always just brake if it detects an object in front. Swerving is a bad idea since it could mean more being hurt. If it hurts someone even when it brakes then it is down to the courts to decide who was at fault. The car is not the end point for decisions making after all.

Who puts their cat and dog in a car by themselves, without a pet carrier? How's the baby strong enough to propel it's own stroller?

>Then don't buy a self-driving car.
Until you can't legally do so.

Based China

A self driving car will be aware of crosswalks numbnuts. But if you walk out into the middle of the road where you should'nt expect to get run over. Just like with non-self driving vehicles.

The pedestrians could just check before crossing

This is a fair point desu, it shouldn't try to make ethical judgements on the value of lives. It's still just a machine, even if it's a smart one.

Recycling is stronk
t.swede

It's also interesting that in nearly every instance of a driver hitting a pedestrian the driver will have tried to swerve out of the way. Sometimes this means someone will get hurt because the driver may try to swerve the wrong way at the same time the pedestrian tries to dive the wrong way. This happens so many times in rekt videos from what I have observed. It is better if the car just brakes and does not try to anticipate which way a pedestrian may or may not move.

>Who is in the right here?

China.

Its murder you get away with. Of course the imagine you might be paiting in your head is a pregnant blonde woman with her family but the reality is that its some filfthy immigrant nig gang.

self driving stroller

Because recycling is pain in the ass and requires money for the infrastructure. First worlders decided it is easier to sell it to China and then whine when they don't recycle it the way first world wants.

Make the car to be able to identify Republicans and the problem is solved.

Here we go again

China is right, but your reasoning is bogus. It doesn't matter how the car got into the situation, it's an accident. Neither party is at fault a neutral scenario. In this case, why would anyone want to sacrifice their life/property for another random stranger?

If you were simply taking a nap inside your autonomous car, how would you feel if the car was forced to sacrifice you to save another random person on the street? Its a totally absurd proposition.

Drive in reverse, yeah it most likely wear down your gears but at least you'll stop

>being ameritard

>A self driving car will be aware of crosswalks numbnuts
Humans here are not, so that's a huge improvement

>people
look closer user

The best option would be to put up barriers along the length of roads that electrocute you if you don't use crossings. Pedestrians need to respect the rules of the road afterall. It's nearly always the pedestrians fault.

This thread reeks of manchildren thats disguisting

>This website reeks of manchildren thats disguisting
ftfy

China is completely correct, people who say the passengers should be spared are missing the bigger picture. No one sane would buy or trust a device that can make the choice to kill it's owner, so if this were forced on the consumer the technology would not become adopted. If the technology is not adopted far more passengers and innocent by standards will die from regular drivers as the AI vehicles are far less likely to get in accidents. In the long run prioritizing passenger safety will lead to faster adoption making less pedestrians die overall.

Mythbusters tried it, trying to shift into reverse while at speed doesn't work.

You have to imagine a scenario where it's 100% either injure the driver or 100% injure pedestrians.
Like say you're driving on a road and the car in front brakes, and the way to avoid drivers injury is to steer to the pedestrian path where theres people.
Is it ever moral to just drive over the pedestrians to protect the driver?

In that situation, you're driving too fucking close to the car in front. Avoidable situation.

So, because the self-driving car got too close to the car in front, it's decided the driver dies?

People walking in front of a car shouldn't be prioritized.

The point is the moral dilemma, theres a choice of who to sacrifice.
Do you sacrifice the driver or the pedestrians? The car has to have the instruction decided beforehand. Do you program the car to steer into people to protect the driver when something that isn't anyone's fault happens?

Indeed. A self driving car will be awareee of the rules of the road and drive accordingly giving itself time to brake. People keep assuming human driving applies to AI which is dumb.

The question is why would anyone buy a car that will kill him. These polls mean nothing unless people participating in them are planning to buy such a car.

If it's not allowing enough space between it and the car in front to stop in time if it brakes suddenly, it's got no regard for safety to begin with.

The moral dilemma is an interesting academic exercise, but like most such moral dilemmas, that's all it is. The chances of it actually coming up in reality are so remote as to not be worth factoring in to design.

People die in car accidents all the time mate. It's not so small chances it's not worth to think about.
And remember the society isn't going 100% self driving cars in one day. It's going to be a mix of normal drivers and people may walk into the road because they're watching their phone or suicidal. Wat do.

>People die in car accidents all the time mate.
Of course they do, that's not the unlikely bit. The unlikely bit is the driver/car being able to determine with such accuracy and certainty that one person or the other is going to die, AND be able to choose which. If there's enough opportunity to change the outcome at all, it should be possible to avoid anyone getting killed.
>It's going to be a mix of normal drivers and people may walk into the road because they're watching their phone or suicidal. Wat do.
For the most part, what people currently do; slam on the brakes and hope for the best.

> slam on the brakes and hope for the best.
But there isn't hoping, computers know exactly whats going to happen. You cant use normal driver logic because they're not the same.
For example you could decide anyone walking across a street is intentionally causing a danger situation so the best course of action is to hit them over steering anywhere else and cause danger to others while regular drivers might steer themselves into a lamppost or kill the driver behind them by braking.

I think you're overestimating how accurately computer modelling can predict everything. But the point is, if for example there you've got enough room between car and pedestrian to swerve out of the way, that's probably enough distance to stop. If stopping suddenly kills the driver of the car behind you, that driver was following too closely and that's his damned fault. (Australian law, at the least, is pretty clear on that one.)

Jesus, communists are soulless

if it swerved fast enough, i think it might be able to flip over the barrier and land upside down on the people

youtube.com/watch?v=MiEYCXPI-qY

Yea the pedestrians sure brought all this onto themselves.
...by crossing the road at the correct place
...where they have right of way by law

Yes I agree with that obviously but what about cars lost in pedestrian zones?

They should be captured by animal control and then released back into their natural habitat.

>China
Oh look, no one is surprised.