Morals of the autonomous car

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

I think this is the right place for this, if not, do tell me.

 

So, watching topgear, Jeremy Clarkson pointed out something interesting (that was already known, but he again reminded me about it):

 

How do we do moral choices in a autonomous car?

Since the autonomous car has no inherent sense of self-preservation yet is in control, lot's of moral issues come up - we now have a choice on picking who to injure and/or kill. Say a car is heading into the following situation: a pedestrian mother with her child start crossing a road, to close to the car for it to stop safely. On the left is a wall (hypothetically) and to the right is a row of trees. It now faces a choice: either, hit the pedestrians and kill them (or at least very likely kill them) or turn right, hitting a tree, killing both itself (but who cares) and the passenger. I think most drivers would go for the first option (or unknowingly kill themselves trying to dodge them) - our sense of self-preservation takes care of that. But should a car do the same?

 

And on a sidenote: Should there be some "standard" for moral choices? I can imagine the need for one, since if the car of brand A will always put your life ahead of that of others (willing to kill many others in order to do so), but car B doesn't, that will give brand A an advantage, even though it's arguably morraly *inferiour* to brand B.

 

Thoughts, opinions, other issues?

[Zeke]

I'd say if this happens in a city (with relatively low speeds, up to 60-80 kph) - steer into a tree. If the car is properly save you have decent chance of surviving. If mother with a child was bold enough to cross a freaking highway - just ram the bitch and try not to hit the child.

[Nup]

Huh, i honestly didn't see this thread coming... 

 

Interesting point though. I think that giving cars this kind of possibility is somewhat beyond us... for today. 

 

One would hope that these cars are driving in such a way that it would avoid any scruples like these in the first place. Possibly being built in a "titanic method" so to speak. 

 

Cars would be built to never exceed certain limits, a certain speed, not to go too close to the car in front, anmd so on and so on. So aybe these kinds of situation would be never even thought of... leading to a miserablely messy end for our innocent and unfortunate pedestrians. 

 

I think it will be century's, if not more before we can replace human intuition for such things. Seeing a kid playing with ball on the side walk and having it in the back of your mind to slow down. 

[ADM-Ntek]

well luckily this cant happen with googles car it only has a top speed of 25MPH. also it will stop automatically if pedestrians are near the road hell its radar can even see you behind walls. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

[Tired_Llama]

Autonomous cars will likely be /very/ heavily regulated. A governing body could mandate a certain moral code(literally code). Autonomy =/= sentient. The car is making a decision, but it's the one we tell it to.

[Norman_the_Owl]

A car will likely do whatever has the best chance of survival in each outcome. Hitting the wall? Passenger has, lets say for example, 50% chance of survival. Smashing into someone in the road? 10% chance. The car will choose to hit the wall. It's not going to be a moral choice, it will be cold and calculated

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

 It's not going to be a moral choice, it will be cold and calculated

 

I understand that, but I was wondering more in the lines of "how" we do the calculation. If we just go utilitaristic on it, we might as well start sending people to kill themselvse so their organs can save more people than had to die. This would also open up a weakness: If you know a car will take the least-dead aproach, you could use this as a method of "killing", by simply giving the car the choice (say, stroll in it's way with a child) and knowing it's outcome. Should people pay for the wrongdoings of others (if I cross the street where I shouldn't, is it not my own fault that it kills me?), and, are certain people more important to others (is it worse to kill 3 80 year old people and save 2 children?) ...

 

As simple as it sounds (just make it kill as few people as possible) I think there is a lot more to it once you start thinking.

[Brawhammer]

I think it should be very simple.

 

When we are in the cars. We try to protect ourselves first then others later.

 

The car should protect the driver no matter the cost to other peoples lives. God damn I paid tons of cash for you and you think I want the car sacrificing me to save others? hell no.

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

well luckily this cant happen with googles car it only has a top speed of 25MPH. also it will stop automatically if pedestrians are near the road hell its radar can even see you behind walls. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

 

Well, the top speed is due to it being a prototype... I remember them also making it pretty much fully foam so people wouldn't go throwing themselves in front of it to get easy insurance money. Once they start hitting production (I can imagine this in as little as a few years) I am quite sure they will be made out of aluminum or the likes, and they must also be capable of at least 130km/h since otherwise nobody would use them (At least in most of europe, where 120km/h or even 130 km/h is the highest speed limit).

[ADM-Ntek]

Well, the top speed is due to it being a prototype... I remember them also making it pretty much fully foam so people wouldn't go throwing themselves in front of it to get easy insurance money. Once they start hitting production (I can imagine this in as little as a few years) I am quite sure they will be made out of aluminum or the likes, and they must also be capable of at least 130km/h since otherwise nobody would use them (At least in most of europe, where 120km/h or even 130 km/h is the highest speed limit).

 

true but you don't have to deal with pedestrians in areas were you can drive that fast. and at those speeds the bordcomputer will have much better reaction time anyways. and I'm sure that it will follow speed limits.

[Kingofpants]

If that happend it would entirely be the fault of the pedestrian and would likely be a scam attempt. Its a self drivng car, it will drive at a normal speed and has very very quick reaction times and would brake.

What your scinareo would like-

[Ertman]

The car likely won't be making a moral choice. It will just analyze the obstruction (pedestrians) and act in a programmed appropriate way, likely attempt to stop.

[TheUnnamedNewbie]

The car likely won't be making a moral choice. It will just analyze the obstruction (pedestrians) and act in a programmed appropriate way, likely attempt to stop.

I'm fully aware of that. I was wondering about how we (should) program it

[techswede]

It will probably be programmed to try and stop. And who knows. In the future we might have a way for it to detect objects hidden behind things.

 

But there should be a manual steering option too. So i could aim for the damn trees myself. 

I really don't like the thought of self driving cars.. Such a dull future

Drive by wire systems are already something i absolutely despise

[Trik'Stari]

It will probably be programmed to try and stop. And who knows. In the future we might have a way for it to detect objects hidden behind things.

 

But there should be a manual steering option too. So i could aim for the damn trees myself. 

I really don't like the thought of self driving cars.. Such a dull future

Drive by wire systems are already something i absolutely despise

*applause*

[techswede]

*applause*

*Bows. Accidentally slams head into desk. Passes out*

[Ertman]

I'm fully aware of that. I was wondering about how we (should) program it

Well probably they shouldn't program it to make those kind of choices, or at least keep it simple where you don't have cars flying off the road with unforeseen consequences.

[SSOB]

This has been considered a major problem from day one. Basically a lot of insurance companies etc. don't want to deal with autonomous crashes as they will inevitably lead to some heat in court etc.

[jkraghify]

The point of autonomous cars though is that there will be so few accidents to begin with. Really, if someone dies in an auto car accident, it's because the human made the mistake. Why do car accidents happen today? Human error is to blame 99.99% of the time. Take out human error and BOOM: driving is safer than walking.

[Kyuubixchidori]

I love the thought of autonomous cars. 

 

think how great it would be, If all the autonomous cars drafted each other in one or two lanes to be as efficient as possible, working together. saving fuel, making gas cheaper. 

less congestion because the cars are smart and stay away from high traffic.

more efficient because time themselves with lights, so less braking

they have their own lane for the most part, and stay away from human drives because they are unpredictable. so we have more road to ourselves.

say you want a few drinks. you can do that and still get home in your own car, because if you dont feel safe to drive, or drive to erratically, it can take over for you. 

less crowded roads? cheaper fuel? cheaper insurance? hell yeah sign me up.

 

Well not me, but people who dont care about driving, and only see it as going from one place to another, Yeah it can drive. Besides, put it this way, how many times has your computer failed you, compared to how often people around you failed you. 

[Jaybird]

im not going to read everyones comments but I would assume the car would know its size and where it is and be able to slightly miss hitting the person. but realistly, the only people i see getting hit by cars are skateboarders who drop down a ledge into the street. so there also that. 

 

[interneteducated]

I understand that, but I was wondering more in the lines of "how" we do the calculation. If we just go utilitaristic on it, we might as well start sending people to kill themselvse so their organs can save more people than had to die. This would also open up a weakness: If you know a car will take the least-dead aproach, you could use this as a method of "killing", by simply giving the car the choice (say, stroll in it's way with a child) and knowing it's outcome. Should people pay for the wrongdoings of others (if I cross the street where I shouldn't, is it not my own fault that it kills me?), and, are certain people more important to others (is it worse to kill 3 80 year old people and save 2 children?) ...

 

As simple as it sounds (just make it kill as few people as possible) I think there is a lot more to it once you start thinking.

Holy shit, someone could just stroll out into the middle of a highway and cause a major pile up, really good point

[IntelFan82]

I chose c doing a hand break turn and driving off the other way