If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   The coming proliferation of driverless cars raises an interesting moral question: Will your car ever have to choose to kill you?   (gizmodo.com) divider line 65
    More: Scary, driverless cars, nuclear proliferation, autonomous vehicle, morals, Popular Science  
•       •       •

1901 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 May 2014 at 9:22 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-12 07:41:43 PM
"Should Your Driverless Car Kill You to Save Two Other People?"

The odds are better that it will choose to kill some stranger to save me and another person, so I am willing to take that gamble.

Besides, the stranger is probably kind of a dick.
 
2014-05-12 07:59:41 PM
pics.imcdb.org

Now I know what I'm going to watch tonight.
 
2014-05-12 08:05:08 PM
No.  Know why?  A car will be programmed to save itself (and by extension, the passenger).  It takes less processing time and is easier to program.

Why would someone choose to complicate things by adding subroutines that quantify the value of passengers of other cars and weighs that against the contents of itself to decide which should be sacrificed?  The crash would be over and done with and both vehicles totaled before it could even come to a conclusion.
 
2014-05-12 08:08:13 PM
Meh, if it does I'm sure it'll have a logical reason to.
 
2014-05-12 08:08:17 PM

Ambivalence: No.  Know why?  A car will be programmed to save itself (and by extension, the passenger).  It takes less processing time and is easier to program.

Why would someone choose to complicate things by adding subroutines that quantify the value of passengers of other cars and weighs that against the contents of itself to decide which should be sacrificed?  The crash would be over and done with and both vehicles totaled before it could even come to a conclusion.


Exactly.  Plus, in a world where self-driving cars are commonplace, they should be able to communicate with each other.  A lot of accidents are caused by one driver doing something the other drivers aren't expecting.  If a self driving car suddenly suffers a fault (blown tire, broken axle, complete loss of traction, etc) it could communicate with the other self driving cars around it - so they could automatically and safely give it room to avoid any kind of collision at all.
 
2014-05-12 08:20:17 PM
So a pointless Gizmodo stump of a stump of an article summary gets submitted, but the in-depth, actually thought-provoking article doesn't. Bravo, subby, you're a winner.

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be -p rogrammed-to-hit-you/
 
2014-05-12 09:08:23 PM
img3.wikia.nocookie.net

No. She would never harm me.
 
2014-05-12 09:15:44 PM
fc09.deviantart.net

/obscure?
 
2014-05-12 09:25:15 PM

Mark Ratner: [fc09.deviantart.net image 850x531]

/obscure?


Is that a star in a Dyson Ring?
 
2014-05-12 09:28:46 PM
A better question is would a driverless car stop driving me to bars before I threw up in it?
 
2014-05-12 09:30:35 PM
img.fark.net

"What car company do you work for."

"A major one."
 
2014-05-12 09:30:35 PM

Mark Ratner: /obscure?


I was never that big of a Futurama fan.
 
2014-05-12 09:37:58 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Ambivalence: No.  Know why?  A car will be programmed to save itself (and by extension, the passenger).  It takes less processing time and is easier to program.

Why would someone choose to complicate things by adding subroutines that quantify the value of passengers of other cars and weighs that against the contents of itself to decide which should be sacrificed?  The crash would be over and done with and both vehicles totaled before it could even come to a conclusion.

Exactly.  Plus, in a world where self-driving cars are commonplace, they should be able to communicate with each other.  A lot of accidents are caused by one driver doing something the other drivers aren't expecting.  If a self driving car suddenly suffers a fault (blown tire, broken axle, complete loss of traction, etc) it could communicate with the other self driving cars around it - so they could automatically and safely give it room to avoid any kind of collision at all.


That's exactly what I was thinking, but in a different way: if the car your in needs to make a programmed maneuver to save your life versus another car, the OTHER car will make a programmed maneuver to save those people and the net result is that the options afforded to the other car actually saves YOUR life & THEIR lives. No need to over think it at all as long as the technology works, there will always be some accidents, but far fewer than now even if the technology doesn't get full adoption.

/sorry about the CAPS
//sent from my iphone
 
2014-05-12 09:50:05 PM
It's a stupid thought expiriment designed by people with a terrible grasp of applied ethics.
 
2014-05-12 09:55:23 PM

Doc Batarang: TuteTibiImperes: Ambivalence: No.  Know why?  A car will be programmed to save itself (and by extension, the passenger).  It takes less processing time and is easier to program.

Why would someone choose to complicate things by adding subroutines that quantify the value of passengers of other cars and weighs that against the contents of itself to decide which should be sacrificed?  The crash would be over and done with and both vehicles totaled before it could even come to a conclusion.

Exactly.  Plus, in a world where self-driving cars are commonplace, they should be able to communicate with each other.  A lot of accidents are caused by one driver doing something the other drivers aren't expecting.  If a self driving car suddenly suffers a fault (blown tire, broken axle, complete loss of traction, etc) it could communicate with the other self driving cars around it - so they could automatically and safely give it room to avoid any kind of collision at all.

That's exactly what I was thinking, but in a different way: if the car your in needs to make a programmed maneuver to save your life versus another car, the OTHER car will make a programmed maneuver to save those people and the net result is that the options afforded to the other car actually saves YOUR life & THEIR lives. No need to over think it at all as long as the technology works, there will always be some accidents, but far fewer than now even if the technology doesn't get full adoption.

/sorry about the CAPS
//sent from my iphone


All this crap about potential problems with autonomous cars when all existing cars have a fundamental defect, the driver.  Over 30K are killed each year and hundreds of thousands injured and maimed.  Add to that the improvement in traffic flow when cars can communicate with each other.  Anyone with any sense can't wait until we get autonomous vehicles.  It will revolutionize travel.
 
2014-05-12 10:01:42 PM
It's not a farking missile. It will simply stop.
 
2014-05-12 10:05:17 PM
I would like to think these self driving cars would give enough margin to avoid running into other cars, in the event of a sudden problem. You know, like how we're actually supposed to drive, but nobody ever does. Car in front blows out its tire? Cars behind aren't tailgating and can brake safely. Car in front? Your auto driving car has stayed far enough behind this isn't a problem. Cars on the sides? No one driving directly next to you for 10 miles like an asshole. The example in the article? Car isn't driving down curves at breakneck speeds. Random car swerves into you? I would like to think a auto driving car society has cars that all talk to each other, so they're instantly alerted to problems and can react accordingly (braking, accelerating, swerving). Deer jumps out in the road? Run that mofo down and have some venison.
 
2014-05-12 10:07:40 PM

doglover: It's a stupid thought expiriment designed by people with a terrible grasp of applied ethics.


Funny thing: I have you Farkied as "Football more important than Child Rape", yet you want to pass judgement on the ethics of others.
 
2014-05-12 10:10:38 PM
But,  it can't choose to allow you to come to harm!  And it also can't allow the passengers in the other vehicle to come to harm.  And it can't do nothing, because that would, by omission, cause everyone to come to harm!

FATAL ERROR.
 
2014-05-12 10:12:48 PM

Mark Ratner: [fc09.deviantart.net image 850x531]

/obscure?


Will I dream?

/not obscure to me.
 
2014-05-12 10:13:31 PM

doglover: It's a stupid thought expiriment designed by people with a terrible grasp of applied ethics.


And a terrible grasp of programming.
 
2014-05-12 10:13:52 PM
I hope it does.
 
2014-05-12 10:19:30 PM
Scenario: driverless car has ethical subroutine that calculates least-harm alternatives, Asimov style.

I see driverless car driving down road.

I am a militant pedestrian who vowed revenge on all drivers after a friend got a leg ripped off while walking home.

I decide to jump in front of all driverless cars, to make them avoid me by slamming into poles and buildings.

Hm.

Interesting. Seems to work.
 
2014-05-12 10:21:49 PM
In the future, we'll all have a "value rating".  Self-driving cars will act to spare the lives of those with the highest rating.  People will be able to "buy" up to a higher value rating, and the wealthy will have the highest ratings.   So pray your self-driving car doesn't cross paths with Mitt Romney's self-driving car, Citizen.

Just an idea I pulled out of my a$$.  Your results may vary.
 
2014-05-12 10:22:47 PM

doglover: It's a stupid thought expiriment designed by people with a terrible grasp of applied ethics.


And of computers, and of physics.

If you're put in a situation where a computer can't react fast enough to find a safe way out for all parties involved, then a person certainly won't be able to save themselves (or anyone else).

If I'm put in an impossible situation, I don't care very much whether there's a computer in charge or a person. It's impossible. That's the whole point.
 
2014-05-12 10:24:53 PM

MayoSlather: A better question is would a driverless car stop driving me to bars before I threw up in it?


came here for "will it drive me home from a bar" comments.......
 
2014-05-12 10:25:00 PM

Mark Ratner: [fc09.deviantart.net image 850x531]

/obscure?


Not if your PC is named "HAL 9000".
 
2014-05-12 10:37:01 PM

Fubini: And of computers, and of physics.

If you're put in a situation where a computer can't react fast enough to find a safe way out for all parties involved, then a person certainly won't be able to save themselves (or anyone else).

If I'm put in an impossible situation, I don't care very much whether there's a computer in charge or a person. It's impossible. That's the whole point.


Plus, just because a situation is impossible to avoid impact doesn't mean said impact would be fatal or even harmful to the passengers.
 
2014-05-12 10:54:03 PM

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Subby, that is the right question

 
2014-05-12 10:59:14 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-12 11:01:09 PM

Devolving_Spud: In the future, we'll all have a "value rating".  Self-driving cars will act to spare the lives of those with the highest rating.  People will be able to "buy" up to a higher value rating, and the wealthy will have the highest ratings.   So pray your self-driving car doesn't cross paths with Mitt Romney's self-driving car, Citizen.

Just an idea I pulled out of my a$$.  Your results may vary.


Google LifeRank™
 
2014-05-12 11:10:20 PM
They'll mono a bunch of people, and even after they solve the programming error, we'll have to spend years chasing them down, from raided gas stations and junkyards across acres of cracked blacktop to some final lost canyon. And there they'll slag them all down, the last of the wild ones.

/obscure?
 
2014-05-12 11:11:25 PM

beefoe: All this crap about potential problems with autonomous cars when all existing cars have a fundamental defect, the driver. Over 30K are killed each year and hundreds of thousands injured and maimed. Add to that the improvement in traffic flow when cars can communicate with each other. Anyone with any sense can't wait until we get autonomous vehicles. It will revolutionize travel.


My wife (and others) think I'm crazy when I say that by the time my infant son is driving, most people will ride to work or wherever in all-electric, plug-in-to-charge electric plastic-and-carbon-fiber pod cars that are completely autonomous.

This change won't be motivated by technology, or even safety- it will be motivated by insurance and liability costs.

Wanna drive your dino juice burner to work? That'll be $1000/month in liability coverage, please. Studies have shown that drivers cause 5,341% more accidents than automated pod cars.

Self-driven cars and gas powered transport will become "enthusiast only" territory, much the way a horse is now.
 
2014-05-12 11:14:47 PM
What if it decides to save someone I don't like and kill me. I want a sh*t list I can put people on that I would rather run over than die to save.
 
2014-05-12 11:35:55 PM
I drive a Dodge, I assume it is trying to kill me.
 
2014-05-12 11:36:06 PM
Cars. Proliferation. Entropy.

This will not end well.

Especially if the speed sensors are sourced from Chrysler.

/GAK
 
2014-05-12 11:36:32 PM

grinding_journalist: beefoe: All this crap about potential problems with autonomous cars when all existing cars have a fundamental defect, the driver. Over 30K are killed each year and hundreds of thousands injured and maimed. Add to that the improvement in traffic flow when cars can communicate with each other. Anyone with any sense can't wait until we get autonomous vehicles. It will revolutionize travel.

My wife (and others) think I'm crazy when I say that by the time my infant son is driving, most people will ride to work or wherever in all-electric, plug-in-to-charge electric plastic-and-carbon-fiber pod cars that are completely autonomous.

This change won't be motivated by technology, or even safety- it will be motivated by insurance and liability costs.

Wanna drive your dino juice burner to work? That'll be $1000/month in liability coverage, please. Studies have shown that drivers cause 5,341% more accidents than automated pod cars.

Self-driven cars and gas powered transport will become "enthusiast only" territory, much the way a horse is now.


Only if a car company goes for the Model-T method and realizes that most people need a car and most people have X amount of money they will spend on a car.

Until then, most people will drive second and third hand cars because they still run and the cost to maintain them is less than the payments on a $30k loan or even saving up for one outright.

\$30k for a care is about the average price for a new car right now
\\that is 1/5th the average price of a house in the USA
\\\Over 20 years, the average price of a car has doubled
 
2014-05-12 11:36:45 PM

grokca: I drive a Dodge, I assume it is trying to kill me.


Why else would they call it a "dodge".
 
2014-05-12 11:37:18 PM
The highways will be like a giant KITT vs KARR episode.
 
2014-05-12 11:44:28 PM

Mark Ratner: [fc09.deviantart.net image 850x531]

/obscure?


What you need is my special, 5 point plan.
 
2014-05-12 11:45:00 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Cars. Proliferation. Entropy.

This will not end well.

Especially if the speed sensors are sourced from Chrysler.

/GAK


You bring up a valid point with that: modern car makers are lucky if they can get your fuel gauge to work right and the metal in the car from rusting. These have been basic things that have been worked on and solved over the last century and major manufacturers still can't get them right.

And you want to trust them to have the car drive itself? What do you want to bet on the first set of self driving cars having a 'software glitch' that drives you into a wall or right into a oncoming lane that has a fuel tanker trunk coming at you? I don't want to be in one of those death traps and I don't want it on the road until the car makers can get the basic units right.

\'software glitch' being bad QC on outsourced parts or bad part design specs to save a few cents
 
2014-05-12 11:53:24 PM

Ambivalence: doglover: It's a stupid thought expiriment designed by people with a terrible grasp of applied ethics.

And a terrible grasp of programming.


Bu-bu-bu surely the more subroutines it has, the better!!
 
2014-05-13 12:03:38 AM

doglover: Ambivalence: doglover: It's a stupid thought expiriment designed by people with a terrible grasp of applied ethics.

And a terrible grasp of programming.

Bu-bu-bu surely the more subroutines it has, the better!!


Real programming quality can only be measured in KLOCs and nothing else!
 
2014-05-13 12:59:46 AM
The obvious, though not as interesting, answer is that the car won't react to blowouts by swerving wildly and generally farking up. In general, it will always react better than the best stunt driver there is, and probably will never have to decide who to kill.
 
2014-05-13 02:40:03 AM

Ambivalence: No.  Know why?  A car will be programmed to save itself (and by extension, the passenger).  It takes less processing time and is easier to program.


So when the car has to swerve and decides to run over a small child on the right rather than side swipe a car on the left because this will cause less damage to the car (and by extension, the passenger) that is OK with you?
There are moral questions to ask. Unfortunately TFA is rather crap at explaining them.
 
2014-05-13 03:16:37 AM
"It's not a car, it's an axe murderer with headlamps."
 
2014-05-13 04:16:57 AM
The cars will do exactly what they've been programmed to do.
 
2014-05-13 04:27:01 AM
Sometimes that self-driving car, he looks right into you. Right into your eyes. You know the thing about a car, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'. Until he bites ya and those black eyes roll over white. And then, ah then you hear that terrible high pitched screamin' and the highway turns red and in spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin' they all come in and rip you to pieces!
 
2014-05-13 04:37:24 AM
what a care trying to kill you might look like.
images.gizmag.com
 
2014-05-13 04:38:08 AM
^car

/fark
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report