The Trolley Problem - Mercedes has their own answer regarding self driving cars

[zMeul]

source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/12/mercedes_autonomous_car_will_run_over_pedestrians/

 

1st, what is the Trolley Problem? one interpretation:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?

 

Mercedes' Christoph von Hugo replies:

Quote

If you know you can save at least one person, at least save that one. Save the one in the car

 

if you find yourself in the path of a Mercedes' self driving car .. well then, better make peace with your maker before it mows you down

 

 

---

 

car manufacturers should not be allowed to make decisions like this and the issue should be a matter of law and not individual interpretation

Edited October 13, 2016 by zMeul

[Guest]

If the person wears blue tshirt I will save him/her

[PRTI]

Where i live all i see is old cars from the 90's which sound like a GTX 480

[deleted_member_030719]

Yeppie! Murder! Love it.

[ThinkWithPortals]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

 

I would have thought the best option would be the one that would result in the fewest casualties, so it should steer into the one person. It's the best option, from a mathematical and logical viewpoint.

[Snadzies]

I like the cut of that child's jib.

[samcool55]

Is it just me or am i the only one that don't think the trolley problem is an issue?

I mean save 5 and kill 1 is better than to kill 5 and save 1, no?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

Is it just me or am i the only one that don't think the trolley problem is an issue?

I mean save 5 and kill 1 is better than to kill 5 and save 1, no?

Mercedes will kill 5 to save one - then .. isn't an issue?! 

[samcool55]

Just now, zMeul said:

Mercedes will kill 5 to save one - then .. isn't an issue?! 

I was just talking about the trolley problem itself btw.

But it does make sense now why you made that comparison, i didn't spot the link with the trolley stuff and the mercedes.

Aaanyway that's indeed an arse move of them if that's how they go about things, but in the end they are german soo... 

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

I was just talking about the trolley problem itself btw

the Trolley Problem can be presented in many different ways

for example: car is heading into a group of kids, no time to stop what do you do? steer into an incoming rig and most likely die but save the kids .. or, do nothing and most likely kill all kids

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Mercedes will kill 5 to save one - then .. isn't an issue?! 

The point is if it ever becomes a trolley problem it has failed. even a person can't make a wise choice in .5 sec when a problem like that comes up. systems should be designed to prevent the trolley problem from happening. once the trolley problem occurs any outcome can be explained to be the best or most logical at that time point.

[MoonSpot]

10 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

I would have thought the best option would be the one that would result in the fewest casualties, so it should steer into the one person. It's the best option, from a mathematical and logical viewpoint.

You may be looking at the wrong numbers.  5 people that weren't customers and may never have been don't count as people.  Save the one that has a chance of bringing repeat business, save the driver.  The rest are inconsequential; they're probably a bunch of hippy bike riders and mass transit supporters anyway (aka poor sub-people).

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

the Trolley Problem can be presented in many different ways

for example: car is heading into a group of kids, no time to stop what do you do? steer into an incoming rig and most likely die but save the kids .. or, do nothing and most likely kill all kids

Most people would crash into the kids because they probably put their life on the first place and i guess most people don't care about other random people.

We are just humans in the end and we have a permanent urge to live and survive like any other animal

[dragosudeki]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Mercedes will kill 5 to save one - then .. isn't an issue?! 

To play devil's advocate, "If I bought a self driving Mercedes car, it better save my life in critical situations."

 

Also, you're ruling out the possibility that the driver may end the trolley situation where everyone dies (not being able to get out of the way, thus running over the people, and then the driver then causes another crash with something else, thus ruining the driver). Hell, most people tailgate and still can't react fast enough to stop without hitting the rear bumper.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Most people would crash into the kids because they probably put their life on the first place and i guess most people don't care about other random people.

We are just humans in the end and we have a permanent urge to live and survive like any other animal

but then you'll have 5 kids on your conscience, 5 families that will hate you for the rest of you life, 5 lawsuits and .. lifetime in prison - I'd rather die 

[Monkey Dust]

So if Mercedes programs the car to behave this way, and one of their cars kills someone who didn't throw themselves in front of it, just someone walking along minding their own business, that could be very costly for Mercedes and may even involve a corporate manslaughter charge.

 

This is the thorny problem that will keep full autonomous vehicles off our roads for sometime. While there is a human 'driver' who is responsible in the event of an accident everything is rosy (sort of), even if they are just monitoring a mostly self driving car, because of human fallibility especially when faced with split second decisions being well established and accepted. When the outcome of an accident isn't decided by humans under pressure, but by humans calmly programming software and having long meetings about the vehicle's behaviour when an accident is unavoidable, society and consequently legislating politicians will not deem this so acceptable. It's not rational as total death toll on our roads would be far, far lower, but plenty of people are happy to drive a car but are terrified of flying so rationality doesn't always come into such decisions.

[samcool55]

Just now, zMeul said:

but then you'll have 5 kids on your conscience, 5 families that will hate you for the rest of you life, 5 lawsuits and .. lifetime in prison - I'd rather die 

Maybe, there are so many things to keep in mind that there are countless ways the disaster would end.

 

Also if you crash into the truck saving the kids, i'm sure nobody will know you deliberately did that to save them and it would just look like a bad accident.

You would die as a hero but again, humans being humans, wouldn't give a crap and would never see you as a hero.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

I was just talking about the trolley problem itself btw.

But it does make sense now why you made that comparison, i didn't spot the link with the trolley stuff and the mercedes.

Aaanyway that's indeed an arse move of them if that's how they go about things, but in the end they are german soo... 

That's if you reduce the problem to a headcount. However, that misses identity: it's 5 to 1, but none of the 5 is the one you kill. There is no reason why quantity in itself should have more weight - in fact most rule-of-law countries explicitly prohibit imposing sacrifices on people for "the greater good". Imagine a doctor finds out you have a rare condition which makes your brain contain some substance that can cure some otherwise incurable disease. Your brain contains enough of it to cure a 100 people, but to use it you need to die. Your solution to the trolley problem implies the government (a judge, someone) to order your detention and death to cure those 100 at imminent risk of death. However, it is currently illegal, and I don't know how many people would approve the "save 5" solution in that context.

 

Another key aspect of the trolley problem is responsibility: there is a decision maker. It is not clear that a person (who has nothing to do with the fact the trolley is heading towards those 5 people) feels equally responsible when watching the accident happen as it does when pulling a lever. Many people would attach a higher degree of responsibility to actions than omissions, hence would consider pulling the lever as murdering a person, while would consider not pulling it as just not being able to help (even not willing to help is not considered equal to taking an action).

 

In fact, you may currently face the same situation while manually driving: what you should do from an ethical point of view? And regardless of ethics, what does the law require form you in that case?

 

10 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The point is if it ever becomes a trolley problem it has failed. even a person can't make a wise choice in .5 sec when a problem like that comes up. systems should be designed to prevent the trolley problem from happening. once the trolley problem occurs any outcome can be explained to be the best or most logical at that time point.

That's wishful thinking. There is no reason to conclude that those situations can be avoided, that there is a design, even if haven't discovered it yet, that eliminates the possibility.    

[HalGameGuru]

The problem is one of context. If some crazed individual is driving towards a group of people you as an outsider have no legal or moral compunction to step in. It is on that individual that those people are in danger and may die. IF you step in you can ARGUE that you saved this many and only lost 1, but you still have put yourself into the situation of someone losing a life due to YOUR decision. Any and all interactions are dependent on those actors whose decisions drove it. 

 

In all of these situations, who has right of way, whose decisions led to this dangerous situation, who is responsible for who's safety?

 

An automated car has a direct responsibility for its passengers, not for individuals interfering with its right of way. And it cannot know or understand context before the fact, although if there is an event going on around it it should be able to slow down due to dangerous outside conditions or unexpected individuals or vehicles in its vicinity. It cannot know whether that's someone who was thrown out of a car during a collision versus someone who jumped in front of it, and it cannot presume to end the life of its passenger on a bunch of what ifs for those who would be in its way. Although it should, once again, be aware enough of its surroundings to know it needs to slow down or increase its area of response if it sees something unexpected coming up ahead.

[AlwaysFSX]

The car is meant to protect the passengers, no one else. Sorry, that's the hand you were dealt if you get nailed by one.

[ThinkWithPortals]

15 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

From a "mathematical and logical viewpoint," there is no answer if you start with the axiom that all lives are infinitely precious, since you can't compare two infinite values

I agree, ethically is where it all gets a bit grey area-y. But, if they're going to make self-driving cars a thing then they're going to have to find a solution pretty sharpish.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

That's wishful thinking. There is no reason to conclude that those situations can be avoided, that there is a design, even if haven't discovered it yet, that eliminates the possibility.    

I mean it is not a simple question, and almost any attempt to solve it in real time will present a case were it made things worse. The car should only minimize the crash in relevance to the car. It has no time to decide what the best outcome is. 

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

The car is meant to protect the passengers, no one else. Sorry, that's the hand you were dealt if you get nailed by one.

then why the cars have been modified to better deal with pedestrian protection n case of an impact?!

 

http://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/pedestrian-protection/

[Arty]

19 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the Trolley Problem can be presented in many different ways

for example: car is heading into a group of kids, no time to stop what do you do? steer into an incoming rig and most likely die but save the kids .. or, do nothing and most likely kill all kids

did the kids cross without looking?

[zMeul]

Just now, Arty said:

did the kids cross without looking?

you have no way of knowing