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

[AlwaysFSX]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

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/

As you should note by that, that's for when someone gets hit by a car. Not to avoid hitting someone and killing somebody else. Chances are if you get hit by a car regardless you're not doing very well.

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

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?    

If you have a cure for 100 people and you would need to die, that's different.

In the trolley scenario you would be the one dude on the rails AND the one standing next to the lever. Because you would die with 1 of the 2 options.

With the trolley scenario the lever guy doesn't die regardless what he does.

 

And responsibility depends how court thinks about it, if you were clearly standing there and there is proof you could switch, even if you didn't, you might be seen as an accessory (i think that's the right word for it) which might get you in big trouble because you could have made the disaster substantially smaller, but you didn't.

 

But again in the end we are all humans with a desire to live and survive so instinctively we will choose for less ethical options if that increases our chance of survival.

[Arty]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you have no way of knowing

No Situation is cut and dry, assuming they were not looking before crossing, why should my life be in danger for someone else not paying attention?

Without knowing all (or a significant amount of ) the factors of a situation you can not just say, kill 5 or 1. 

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Arty said:

No Situation is cut and dry, assuming they were not looking before crossing, why should my life be in danger for someone else not paying attention?

Without knowing all (or a significant amount of ) the factors of a situation you can not just say, kill 5 or 1. 

what if the group is led by a teacher and the kids, as being kids, follow the teacher

the teacher is legally responsible for everything that happens to the kids, or the kids do under teacher's guard

[Arty]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

what if the group is led by a teacher and the kids, as being kids, follow the teacher

the teacher is legally responsible for everything that happens to the kids, or the kids do under teacher's guard

so then i die and the teacher goes to jail for murder........and my life is lost because of a dumbfuck......

 They should be proactive in stopping these situations before they happen instead of reactive....

but i would hope a teacher wouldn't do such a thing to their children.........

[goodtofufriday]

This is blown a little out of proportion. Cars still have the self-braking system and im sure that it would act in the case of a human being in the way. 

 

The decision is more likely when does the car either

A - hit a person and the driver lives 

Or

B - Swerve out of the way, hit a wall, and kill the driver

C - break hard and get hit from behind and (depending on speed) kill the driver of the rear car.

 

In that situation it makes sense. 

[Imabigmac]

And that is how you know Mercedes builds cars for the rich. 

[HalGameGuru]

Most of the pedestrian safety measures in place now are state edicts, and do not directly endanger the passengers, although they do effect aesthetic design and aerodynamics. They don't directly compromise the passengers' safety. Giving a self driving car a logic set that sacrifices its passengers ignorant of the context of the events around it takes a few too  many steps outside its direct responsibilities

[SpaceGhostC2C]

48 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

If you have a cure for 100 people and you would need to die, that's different.

In the trolley scenario you would be the one dude on the rails AND the one standing next to the lever. Because you would die with 1 of the 2 options.

With the trolley scenario the lever guy doesn't die regardless what he does. 

What I meant was the individual with the cure is the guy in the rail, and the state is the one with the lever. 

 

In any case, in the case discussed here, it is as you say, so it isn't really a trolley dilemma. I mean, it can be from the manufacturer's point of view, but not the driver. While laws require you to minim minimize damage and help others, it is only as long as you don't endanger yourself. So, if the automated car takes the place of the driver, it would be OK to grant the driver (passenger) safety first, as that would be consistent with current rules for drivers. 

In other words: to solve these dilemmas you have to decide on behalf of whom is the automated car making decisions, and then apply the same rules you would apply to that person. That is, to the extent a solution exist for people :-P

 

[Bensemus]

1 hour ago, 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 

The scenario where there are five kids in front of the car and you have no time to stop is theoretical. When would that actualy happen where it isn't the kids fault? The only time I can think of it happening is if they just run directly onto the street from in between parked cars. In that scenario it's not the drivers fault for hitting them as the driver was following all the laws. The kids are the ones who messed up. Autonomous cars can react faster so this scenario is less likely to happen to autonomous cars then it is to human drivers anyways.

 

Other times it can happen are all the fault of the driver not paying attention which is one of the things autonomous cars are much much better at.

 

Overall I think the car should prioritize the drivers life and not swerve into oncoming traffic as it's not the drivers fault they are in that situation. The car and the manufacturer are the ones in control so they need to take the blame if the car is in the wrong. Passengers aren't liable for anything that happens while in a taxi as they aren't in control of it.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Bensemus said:

Passengers aren't liable for anything that happens while in a taxi as they aren't in control of it.

a autonomous car isn't a taxi

 

you are the owner of said autonomous car, you are legally responsible of everything it does

[Bensemus]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

a autonomous car isn't a taxi

 

you are the owner of said autonomous car, you are legally responsible of everything it does

You are the owner but you aren't the driver. If I drive my parents car and crash I am responsible, even if I only have my learners (BC, Canada thing) and require a licenced driver accompanying me. The car is the one driving and making decisions so it should be responsible for those decisions or it shouldn't be driving.

 

Right now drivers are still responsible as the cars aren't fully autonomous, they still need oversight. So right now it would be the drivers fault as they allowed the car to get into that situation. In the future when the cars no longer need oversight then they also need to be responsible for any accidents they caused as they were the sole "thing" in control.

[zMeul]

Just now, Bensemus said:

You are the owner but you aren't the driver. If I drive my parents car and crash I am responsible, even if I only have my learners (BC, Canada thing) and require a licenced driver accompanying me. The car is the one driving and making decisions so it should be responsible for those decisions or it shouldn't be driving.

that's not how it works

 

the autonomous car has a mind of it's own and you are the owner

the same thing applies to you if you owned a dog, and said dog goes on a killing spree - you go do jail

[Photonic]

Save the person in the car it would the peoples fault for deciding to stand in on railway in the first place.

[Bensemus]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's not how it works

 

the autonomous car has a mind of it's own and you are the owner

the same thing applies to you if you owned a dog, and said dog goes on a killing spree - you go do jail

A dog and a car aren't the same thing though. Dogs are the owners responsibility to control as they are animals and we consider them less intelligent, not humans or AIs. An autonomous car is supposed to replace the human eventually at which point it is responsible for its actions so it's the human's equal on the road. A dog is never equal to a human. The AI is programmed by humans to be safe. It's not sentient so it can only make choices allowed by its coding. If that code can't handle a situation and causes an accident the owner can't be held responsible as they had zero input into anything that lead to the accident. The manufacturer is the one who sold a car with subpar code and they are to blame. I feel like there is a latin term that explains what i'm trying to say...

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Bensemus said:

A dog and a car aren't the same thing though. Dogs are the owners responsibility to control as they are animals and we consider them less intelligent, not humans or AIs. An autonomous car is supposed to replace the human eventually at which point it is responsible for its actions so it's the human's equal on the road. A dog is never equal to a human. The AI is programmed by humans to be safe. It's not sentient so it can only make choices allowed by its coding. If that code can't handle a situation and causes an accident the owner can't be held responsible as they had zero input into anything that lead to the accident. The manufacturer is the one who sold a car with subpar code and they are to blame. I feel like there is a latin term that explains what i'm trying to say...

you buy a handgun and put in in the undewear drawer, someone takes that gun and shoots someone - you are legally fucked

[Bensemus]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

you buy a handgun and put in in the undewear drawer, someone takes that gun and shoots someone - you are legally fucked

Because you failed to store it properly. Had the gun been stored properly you wouldn't be responsible as you followed all the laws.

[zMeul]

@Bensemus so .. explain to me why, in the case of the Tesla that went under a trailer and killed the owner, wasn't Tesla held responsible for the AI killing the "passenger"

[AresKrieger]

Let's just put it this way would you buy a car that put the safety of others above your own safety because I sure as hell wouldn't, thus I think his response is the best one available to them.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, 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 

If it came down to the trolley situation, prison isn't an issue unless you were doing something dumb/illegal like reckless driving. 

 

For the driver, is it better to die that to have the 5 lives on his consciousness? Since you would rather die, I would assume you don't hold your own life in higher regard than that of others, nor the consequences your death would entail. 

 

In this case, provided the car was functioning perfectly, I do not think it should divert from the path if it were to endanger the driver, as the driver had no direct involvement that led to the unfortunate situation. 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

For the driver, is it better to die that to have the 5 lives on his consciousness? Since you would rather die, I would assume you don't hold your own life in higher regard than that of others, nor the consequences your death would entail. 

ask a soldier the same question, oh wait .. I am a Sergeant in reserve

[Zodiark1593]

Just now, zMeul said:

ask a soldier the same question, oh wait .. I am a Sergeant in reserve

In that case, I would count myself rather lucky. 

[spwath]

I think a more difficult problem is this:

The car is headed at high speed toward a truck that suddenly got in the way. If it continues on this path, the ocupents of the car will be killed. The only other option is to veer off at hit a group of school children. What does the car do?
Would YOU want to buy a car litteraly programed to kill you?
But you wouldent want to kill 5 inocent children either.

 

IRL, the person would save themselves. But do you want a car programed to cause mass casualties?

[Arty]

2 minutes ago, spwath said:

I think a more difficult problem is this:

The car is headed at high speed toward a truck that suddenly got in the way. If it continues on this path, the ocupents of the car will be killed. The only other option is to veer off at hit a group of school children. What does the car do?
Would YOU want to buy a car litteraly programed to kill you?
But you wouldent want to kill 5 inocent children either.

 

IRL, the person would save themselves. But do you want a car programed to cause mass casualties?

why is the truck in the way in the first place?

we should be trying to prevent these situations from ever happening to begin with.

[spwath]

1 minute ago, Arty said:

why is the truck in the way in the first place?

we should be trying to prevent these situations from ever happening to begin with.

The truck isnt a self driving car. He ran a red light.

 

Or a big boulder fell of a cliff in front of the car.

 

Or anything where the car would crash, killing ocupents. These situations would still arise every now and then.