MIT posts results of a 4 year global study into the morality of driverless vehicles (who should they save in a crash?)

[Master Disaster]

Let's make it clear from the start, MIT have said this wasn't a fully scientific study  nor was it ever intended to create an answer to the problem, infact they acknowledge that this issue is so complex it might be impossible to find a solution that pleases everyone. The intention was to gauge the public's opinion on the subject, compare how these opinions differ around the world and to start the debate on this subject proper. It is a very interesting subject though.

 

For the last 4 years MIT have been running a global study into the morality of driverless vehicles via the website http://www.moralmachine.mit.edu and have just published the global data on the subject.

 

Quote

If forced to choose, who should a self-driving car kill in an unavoidable crash?

 

Should the passengers in the vehicle be sacrificed to save pedestrians? Or should a pedestrian be killed to save a family of four in the vehicle?

 

To get closer to an answer - if that were ever possible - researchers from the MIT Media Lab have analysed more than 40 million responses to an experiment they launched in 2014.

 

Their Moral Machine has revealed how attitudes differ across the world.

Testers are presented with multiple scenarios and are asked to choose their favoured outcome in the given scenario.

Quote

People were presented with several scenarios. Should a self-driving car sacrifice its passengers or swerve to hit:

 

• a successful business person?
• a known criminal?
• a group of elderly people?
• a herd of cows?
• pedestrians who were crossing the road when they were told to wait?

Four years after launching the experiment, the researchers have published an analysis of the data in Nature magazine.

Obviously the results varied around the world but in general people seem to prefer to save as many people as possible, to save humans over animals and save young people over old people. There were a few oddities too, for example saving females over males and saving higher status people over lower status.

Quote

The results from 40 million decisions suggested people preferred to save humans rather than animals, spare as many lives as possible, and tended to save young over elderly people.

 

There were also smaller trends of saving females over males, saving those of higher status over poorer people, and saving pedestrians rather than passengers.

Around half a million people chose to complete an optional demographic survey and researchers say that these qualifiers don't "have a sizeable impact" on the choices most people would make however there are a few differences caused by geography and culture.

Quote

About 490,000 people also completed a demographic survey including their age, gender and religious views. The researchers said these qualities did not have a "sizeable impact" on the decisions people made.

 

The researchers did find some cultural differences in the decisions people made. People in France were most likely to weigh up the number of people who would be killed, while those in Japan placed the least emphasis on this.

Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45991093

Full results write up - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0637-6

 

The test is still running if you want to go and take part.

 

This is a very interesting topic to me. It's not something i think we're ever going to find a definitive solution too and it's going to be a nightmare for manufacturers as we might well end up with different laws and rules in every country.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

as the saying goes in china: "give way to cars, people."

 

._.

I can't decide if this is serious or a joke and I'm not sure if that says more about me or China tbh

[asus killer]

note to self: be careful while crossing the road in China or Taiwan.

 

on a side note the best place to be inside a self driving car is China and Taiwan if you don't mind the occasional mauling of a pedestrian

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

• a successful business person?
• a known criminal?
• a group of elderly people?
• a herd of cows?

1. Who do they work for?

2. Yes

3. How many in the car?

4. Yes (mmm steak)

[leadeater]

This is easily solved by having a "Save Me" button in the car, car detects potential collision and you like everyone will hit that button so fast and hard.

[RejZoR]

Don't discriminate, target everyone. Cars should be programmed to hit as many people as possible when it has to make a choice. It's why Mercedes has a crosshair on the hood for ages. It's to target people easier.

[Spotty]

Quote

Least emphasis on sparing the young:
1. China
2. China
3. South Korea
4. Japan

What the heck, Asia? I know you have had population control issues, but C'mon...

 

[Mihle]

Well, if you drive fast enough, driving in to a herd of cows would kill the driver too. Cows are heavy.

[Mihle]

Well, a driver in a car is more likely to survive but with damage than pedestrian is.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Least emphasis on sparing the young:
1. China
2. China
3. South Korea
4. Japan

I see what you did there lol

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I see what you did there lol

The Guanxie Qlique called.

 

They want their China back

[Fetzie]

17 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Well, if you drive fast enough, driving in to a herd of cows would kill the driver too. Cows are heavy.

Even a single cow is enough to total a car tbh. Around here we have a lot of boar, and if you hit one of those at more than about 50 kph your car is scrap.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

Even a single cow is enough to total a car tbh. Around here we have a lot of boar, and if you hit one of those at more than about 50 kph your car is scrap.

My dad hit a cow at night, pretty much at 100 km/h because it was black. Rolled up and over the car, total write off, but he was fine because of how it got lifted due to the speed and the cow being side on.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

 infact they acknowledge that this issue is so complex it might be impossible to find a solution that pleases everyone.

 

This is what I tried to argue in the last huge thread about this.  But some people are just so sure of themselves and their understanding of ethical dilemmas that they think there is an answer.

 

There will never be an answer because there will always be someone who disagrees and feels it is not right.

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

My dad hit a cow at night, pretty much at 100 km/h because it was black. Rolled up and over the car, total write off, but he was fine because of how it got lifted due to the speed and the cow being side on.

lucky man, did he buy a tatts ticket?

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

lucky man, did he buy a tatts ticket?

Not even won a free ticket, used all the luck in the crash.

[Spotty]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

My dad hit a cow at night, pretty much at 100 km/h because it was black.

I... Don't think you intended that to mean what I thought it did... At least I hope not.

[leadeater]

Just now, Spotty said:

I... Don't think you intended that to mean what I thought it did... At least I hope not.

Well if it was day time and white it would have been a similar issue . Night time in the country and dark objects can't been seen, car lights don't help.

[Dylanc1500]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

My dad hit a cow at night, pretty much at 100 km/h because it was black. Rolled up and over the car, total write off, but he was fine because of how it got lifted due to the speed and the cow being side on.

So he doesn't like cows. Is his name George Nelson by chance?

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

So he doesn't like cows. Is his name George Nelson by chance?

Oh George, not the live stock.

[Dylanc1500]

Just now, leadeater said:

Oh George, not the live stock.

Thank goodness. That quote is older than some of the members lol.

[Tristerin]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

This is easily solved by having a "Save Me" button in the car, car detects potential collision and you like everyone will hit that button so fast and hard.

This wins the thread.  This is the only truth to the question.  In the end, each person would hit the button in the event of an imminent crash of any sort.  Same reason you blink when something accelerates at your eye.

[jagdtigger]

Well as the saying goes "idiots most die" i would say they should save the ones who arent responsible for the wreck. Its just insane how many smombies out there and the authorities dont do anything about them(and i could write a pretty long list what else they are failing to do).

[RejZoR]

Solution: Stop being poor and buy a car.

[jagdtigger]

Yeah, because having a brain dead driver is better.... (Just look at how many accidents happen because of using phone while driving.)