Should A Self-Driving Car Kill Its Passengers In A “Greater Good” Scenario?

[Tredok]

So before this article i was thinking "YEAH SELF-DRIVING CARS!!!" but now, i am not so sure.

Ok then to the point, the short version is that there are this so-called "Moral Alrgorithms" in which you program the car to do something in a given a scenario, the example of the article is that you come out of a corner and you are about to crash into a group of people, and so you have to keep turing, crash into the wall injuring or even killing the driver (yourself) or keep breaking and crash on the people injuring some of them and keeping you safe.

And so comes another decision, about this attempt of an "emotionless-decision" in which you have two options, lets say you buy a car from X-Manufacturer, you have two car models:

1. The first has the Kill-The-Driver Algorithm
2. The second has the Keep-Driver-Safe Algorithm.

if the buyers is given the option, is the fault of the buyer for the outcome of the scenario?
 

Quote of the MIT page:

"One way to approach this kind of problem is to act in a way that minimizes the loss of life. By this way of thinking, killing one person is better than killing 10."

 

I don't know, it made me think, and i want to say that it will make this community think too.

And please check the original sources, they explain it better than i do.

Here is the link to IFLS: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/should-self-driving-car-be-programmed-kill-its-passengers-greater-good-scenario

Here are other links to MIT's page about the matter: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/

 

 

If you have seen this article before, please tell me so i can erase it, i searched the posts of the last 4 days and didn't found it, so i decided to do it myself. 

[thekeemo]

Yes its the drivers fault. He chose his life over that of many others.

[givingtnt]

 

lol I got skipped on that one.. I was about to post about it >.>

 

this is some very delicate topic.  the objective answer is yes. the personal answer is it no. the victim's answer is yes.

 

2:1   so yes wins.

[Godlygamer23]

Please add a quote to your post from one of your sources.

 

The problem with this whole algorithm thing is it makes an assumption. What if you're about to hit someone and the only other option is to hit a wall? What if you have 5 people in your car? Do you hit the wall, killing or injuring you and your passengers, or that single person?

[skyress3000]

Just pointing out, a self-driving car should take corners slow enough so that it doesn't crash into something around the corner.

[Morgan MLGman]

The car should behave in the best interest of the driver and the passengers inside of the vehicle. I would not enter a car that can kill me if it saves someone else. Ever.
It might sound selfish but my life > someone's else life, if the car runs into many people it's not my fault, it's self-driving for god's sake, a situation like this should never happen and it's the system's fault if it kills someone.

[J. Hammond]

The question isn't what should the car do, it's why the hell are those people jaywalking?

[Thorium19]

This is why I don't like the idea  of self driving cars, James May actually talked about it about 2 seasons ago on top gear. Personally if I was programming it I would have to set it to protect the lives of the vehicles occupants over others outside, but that's just me.

[theninja35]

In what scenario are you going to be coming out of a corner fast enough that you will hit a crowd? That is very unlikely, or you will at least see the crowd before finishing the corner.

 

You will either have to produce property damages or human damages, if this very unlikely scenario occurred. I'd go with human, BECAUSE (before everyone yells at me), the car should be able to stop at a fast enough rate to barely scrape someone. If, of course, the self-driving system takes corners like a normal person and not like a maniac with nothing to live for.

[Tredok]

Just pointing out, a self-driving car should take corners slow enough so that it doesn't crash into something around the corner.

I know and i agree with you, but this is a hypothetical scenario, and there might other types of scenarios that fall on the same thing, i left all my opinions out ot the topic, i only said "it made me think" but considering how the pedestrians and drivers are in my country, this might happen more than you think it could. 

 

Still agree with you... 

[GlassBomb]

What will basically happen in these kinds of scenarios is just that the car will try and do an emergency stop. Without trying to drive to either side. Since turning over to the sides is potentially more dangerous than just coming to a stop.

[asiancorruption]

This is why I think some tech should stay out of cars. there are way too many driver assists in cars for my taste. It makes people lazy and what happens when those systems fail? the driver has to take over control after they have not done so for a long time, which can result in more human error. Also, what happens if a hacker takes over a car? Any bit of code can be broken and manipulated if a person wishes to do so. then what? 

[Tredok]

The car should behave in the best interest of the driver and the passengers inside of the vehicle. I would not enter a car that can kill me if it saves someone else. Ever.

It might sound selfish but my life > someone's else life, if the car runs into many people it's not my fault, it's self-driving for god's sake, a situation like this should never happen and it's the system's fault if it kills someone.

But you are skipping the point of the manufacturer loading the first or the second algorithm, and the level of morality those have, or even the buyers choosing either algorithm, and pre-killing somebody or commiting suicide. The point is that they are trying to make an "Emotion-less" decision, and it might be emotion-less at the moment, but somebody made the car do what it did.

Besides the scenario doesn't mention a failure on the car systems.

this very scenario, falls on the middle ground of safety.

Just to mention it, here in Mexico the pedestrians has the priority of safety at all times on every non priority-specific zones, which are marked out. 

[Godlygamer23]

Because your post does not comply with the requirements(I politely asked you to add a quote), this is being moved to General Discussion.

 

Our requirements can be found here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/11724-read-before-posting-in-this-section/

Edited October 27, 2015 by Godlygamer23

[BuckGup]

Simple the car has ejector seats

[soaringchicken]

If everyone has self driving cars this wouldn't be a problem in the first place, but I can imagine it's going to be a long time before that happens.

 

"I don't want no robot takin care of me"

[DildorTheDecent]

Apply brakes and deploy the parachute.

 

It's like you guys don't know how to motor vehicle. 

[reapersivan]

Please add a quote to your post from one of your sources.

 

The problem with this whole algorithm thing is it makes an assumption. What if you're about to hit someone and the only other option is to hit a wall? What if you have 5 people in your car? Do you hit the wall, killing or injuring you and your passengers, or that single person?

Mindblown. They need some like really reinforced brakes, parachutes that shoot backwards diagnally to help you brake

[Tredok]

Simple the car has ejector seats

That would be so awesome hahahahaha. you made me laugh at the same time providing a not so imposible solution.

[Tredok]

Please add a quote to your post from one of your sources.

 

The problem with this whole algorithm thing is it makes an assumption. What if you're about to hit someone and the only other option is to hit a wall? What if you have 5 people in your car? Do you hit the wall, killing or injuring you and your passengers, or that single person?

I'll add it, but that is why i said "Check the original articles, they explain it better than i did" 

[Legion]

Simple the car has ejector seats

 

 

 

Fast and furious years ahead of its time

 

Sigh time stamps don't work on embedded videos.. 2min 30 

[Godlygamer23]

I'll add it, but that is why i said "Check the original articles, they explain it better than i did" 

Remember to use the quote functionality. The little chat bubble in the tools will create a quote for you. Alternatively, you could type out the code for it.

[quote]Text here[/quote]

Just like that.

[Bensemus]

I think this is a really poor example. If there is a crowd of people on the street most likely there is an event and the street is closed, or their is a protest going on which usually have police directing traffic at intersections.

 

Imo a better example is someone running onto the road. Humans react on instinct so some will just brake others will turn to avoid. A car would have to be programmed to do one or the other. 

[Imabigmac]

Nope, plough through them like a regular driver. Driverless cars aren't supposed to be god, just human drivers and stop stupid car crashes, like rear enders and loss of control, etc and not a random hypothetical situation where 25 kids are randomly wondering across the highway.  In theory the car should not have put itself in the position to kill a bunch of pedestrians or the wreck the car. So either the car malfunctioned was "distracted" or something neither a person or computer could predict, in which case  it is car versus people whether its ethical or not, like I said in the beginning its car and a computer not a Judge/Cop/President/God. 

[Morgan MLGman]

But you are skipping the point of the manufacturer loading the first or the second algorithm, and the level of morality those have, or even the buyers choosing either algorithm, and pre-killing somebody or commiting suicide. The point is that they are trying to make an "Emotion-less" decision, and it might be emotion-less at the moment, but somebody made the car do what it did.

Besides the scenario doesn't mention a failure on the car systems.

this very scenario, falls on the middle ground of safety.

Just to mention it, here in Mexico the pedestrians has the priority of safety at all times on every non priority-specific zones, which are marked out. 

I didn't skip that point. I mean that it should always prioritize the safety of the passengers of the car. Even if it means running into / over a bunch of people. There should be no morality involved here, if people die it's the system's fault, not the people inside the vehicle, why would they die cause the system is imperfect? Hell, the system might be perfect, but people are retards and if they are where they are not supposed to be, it's called natural selection baby.