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

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If there's time to press that button, there's time to avoid a fatal accident. What's being asked here is what the car should do, when faced with an unavoidable crash, if the "driver" isn't able to choose on the spot.

That was a joke ripped off a comedian, can't remember who.

[TechyBen]

37 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I actually think this is a viable solution tbh. Only allow self driving mode in areas where pedestrian contact is impossible (highways, motorways etc) or incredibly unlikely (country roads, non urbanised areas etc). Anywhere even semi urbanised the AI should shut down and require the human to take control.

 

The fastest and busiest roads should require AI to be enabled at all times on every vehicle including transportation vehicles (such as lorries and vans) and public transport vehicles (taxis, minibuses, coaches etc) as these roads tend to have larger accidents including multiple vehicles more often.

 

The only issue right now is every manufacturer has their own AI system and non of them are able to communicate with any of the others. For AI to become safer than human control the AIs need to be able to talk to other vehicles around it. Once this happens crashes on the biggest and fastest roads will all but disappear.

This.

 

IIRC when they do "no markings roads" it forces people to drive slowly, it forces them to give way to pedestrians. Why? There is no rule saying they have a right to drive as fast as they want on *their* road. They must feel like they are in the pedestrians way, and so do their best to keep safe.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35480736

 

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/nov/11/london-exhibition-road-cultural

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028740/Accident-free-zone-The-German-town-scrapped-traffic-lights-road-signs.html

 

https://bigthink.com/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs

 

Video is fantastic: (As I always say, nature beat AI/machine by a LONG way)

 

 

[jagdtigger]

20 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

IRC when they do "no markings roads" it forces people to drive slowly

Well those ppl are pretty dumb then... Even if there is no markings on the road the rules still apply there, which means pedestrians cannot cross willy-nilly without cjecking if its safe to do.

[TechyBen]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well those ppl are pretty dumb then... Even if there is no markings on the road the rules still apply there, which means pedestrians cannot cross willy-nilly without cjecking if its safe to do.

Actually no. Read the article. That place has special "no road markings/signs". There is no right of way (IIRC) they all must be careful of other people, and go together.

 

That is, if there are traffic lights, the rule is "stop at the red, go at the green", if there is no light, there is no "law" to follow. If there are no junctions, there are no stopping places (even if there is a universal "stop at the junction" law... you sidestep it by having no junction  ).

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, TechyBen said:

There is no right of way

If there is no pedestrian crossing painted on the road pedestrians most yield to traffic AFAIK.

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

How about instead of prioritizing on who should be saved first, we should take a look into how we could prevent a crash from happening in the first place or even if a crash occurs on how to minimize the damage as much as possible and keep the possibility of fatal injuries low. If I am not mistaken, there is (or has) been a research on how to develop an external airbag to not only protect those inside, but those from the outside as well. 

You're missing the point though.

 

No matter how well the tech is designed, eventually it'll have to make a decision between risking different lives.

 

Even if it happens only 0.000001% of the time, it'll happen, multiple times, due to the sheer number of vehicles on the road.

 

And because it'll eventually happen, we must consider the question, and decide collectively as a society how we want the AI to react in these scenarios.

 

Simply saying "well just have the AI car stop and avoid the accident" is not answering the question, because eventually it'll encounter a situation it cannot avoid.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

So you are in an AI car, another oncoming car moves in to your lane and will cause a head on collision. On the side walk are pedestrians, there is more on coming traffic, there are no sidings, no off ramps, no where to go. Does the AI stay the course and crash head on or swerve and hit the pedestrians, both situations will cause injury with potential death. Which is correct?

 

But this won't happen if all cars are AI driven, well what if it's a mechanical fault like a tyre blow out. At some point something will go wrong and everything being self driving cars won't eliminate that.

 

This is an ethics conundrum, reducing the chances of the posed issue doesn't actually solve it. Edit: Not that there is necessarily a "solution".

Definitely all of this.

 

We can improve AI tech as much as possible, but it will never entirely eliminate accidents or unforeseen scenarios. Therefore we must plan for those scenarios. Because if we don't, the first time it happens, people will scream "WHY DIDN'T YOU PLAN FOR THIS!"

[TechyBen]

9 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

If there is no pedestrian crossing painted on the road pedestrians most yield to traffic AFAIK.

It is a special zone. It has special exemptions. IE, it does not follow those road laws (again, people are not even looking to what country it is, then assuming they know the traffic law of said country, or that all of the countries have the same traffic law... oh why am I even typing  )

[bitsandpieces]

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

Don't confuse what people are saying about ethnics with mere feelings.  As I have already pointed out, if you wish to obey the law, then the AI vehicle must not involve any person who is not intrinsically a part of a situation already.  By doing so the incident goes from being an accident to manslaughter.  That is the law and that has to worked out.  Remember this is not a simply case of program the computer to avoid hurting people.  there is a whole array of complex issues that have to be addressed in implenting such a device.

I hope the Uber incident is still in you mind, were people prosecuted for that?

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, bitsandpieces said:

I hope the Uber incident is still in you mind, were people prosecuted for that?

I have seen no updates on the investigation. It could well be pending in the court system, or the investigation may still be incomplete.

[AngryBeaver]

I think it should be a weighted system. How many people are in the car? If it is a family parent and kid or 2 parents and kids then I think priority should always go to the occupants. If it is a solo occupant and a solo pedestrian then it should be weighted to favor the occupant. Now if 2 pedestrians that changes to favor the pedestrian.

 

If that isn't a solution, then I think it should always prioritize the occupant.

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, bitsandpieces said:

were people prosecuted for that?

Yep because a person blindly ran into the street and was killed so no designers and the driver are to blame. 

 

We wouldnt need to have many of these AI laws if humans would drive correctly and stop crossing the roads expecting someone to stop for you.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

I think it should be a weighted system. How many people are in the car? If it is a family parent and kid or 2 parents and kids then I think priority should always go to the occupants. If it is a solo occupant and a solo pedestrian then it should be weighted to favor the occupant. Now if 2 pedestrians that changes to favor the pedestrian.

 

If that isn't a solution, then I think it should always prioritize the occupant.

That assumes the vehicle can tell how many occupants it has, or their age, etc.

 

Which might be possible eventually, but I wouldn't count on that with current AI driverless tech.

[AngryBeaver]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

That assumes the vehicle can tell how many occupants it has, or their age, etc.

 

Which might be possible eventually, but I wouldn't count on that with current AI driverless tech.

A lot of cars can already do this to a degree that aren't smart cars. They have sensors in the seat to detect weight and calculate the age or size of the occupant to determine whether or not to enable airbags. So this is actually something rather easy to put in place.

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

I think it should be a weighted system. How many people are in the car? If it is a family parent and kid or 2 parents and kids then I think priority should always go to the occupants. If it is a solo occupant and a solo pedestrian then it should be weighted to favor the occupant. Now if 2 pedestrians that changes to favor the pedestrian.

 

If that isn't a solution, then I think it should always prioritize the occupant.

Its not that simple in most people's eyes. How about a situation when there are two teenagers or four 90 year old elders? Do numbers succeed having a life ahead of them vs already lived?

 

IMO I think it should always protect the driver. The way I see it is the car is driving per the rules but humans just dont know nor care about traffic rules. If a person is in the road or crossed on a wim without looking. I am sorry but I have no sympathy.

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

again, people are not even looking to what country it is, then assuming they know the traffic law of said country

This specific law is common as mud. And for a reason, it is insane to think otherwise about pedestrian vs traffic. The sad example is my country, ppl only know the rules when police is around. When they think there is none then all hell break loose....

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

This specific law is common as mud. And for a reason, it is insane to think otherwise about pedestrian vs traffic. The sad example is my country, ppl only know the rules when police is around. When they think there is none then all hell break loose....

That is a special zone, specifically indicated, where no one transportation method has any more right of way than any other. The point of it is because of that you have to drive slowly and safely and be aware of everything around you, it may in fact be faster to walk or cycle in the zone rather than be in a car.

 

If you in a car hit anyone, regardless of any circumstances you are at fault. It doesn't matter if they walked in front of you, you hit them in that zone where you must always drive carefully and you have no more right of way than anyone else.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, bitsandpieces said:

I hope the Uber incident is still in you mind, were people prosecuted for that?

It is, I got heavily involved in that discussion, feel free to search for the threads and read my opinions.

 

6 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yep because a person blindly ran into the street and was killed so no designers and the driver are to blame. 

 

We wouldnt need to have many of these AI laws if humans would drive correctly and stop crossing the roads expecting someone to stop for you.

 

From the evidence that is emerging it doesn't look that cut and dried, It looks largely like there was severe neglect on ubers part.

[mynameisjuan]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

From the evidence that is emerging it doesn't look that cut and dried, It looks largely like there was severe neglect on ubers part.

 

Even if Uber had absolute shit night vision (which it did) its still the humans responsibility and common sense to stop and look before bolting across a road. The AI cant fix stupid nor is at fault nor is the driver. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

Even if Uber had absolute shit night vision (which it did) its still the humans responsibility and common sense to stop and look before bolting across a road. The AI cant fix stupid nor is at fault nor is the driver. 

In that case the driver would be because as far as I know, it's been a while since that story, the current laws meant the driver should always be in control of and responsible for the vehicle and the current Uber policy was also that. Few places legally allow unattended fully autonomous vehicles. 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

Even if Uber had absolute shit night vision (which it did) its still the humans responsibility and common sense to stop and look before bolting across a road. The AI cant fix stupid nor is at fault nor is the driver. 

I don't know how far if at all this issue has traveled in judicial circles, The camera footage was so dismal that it is just as likely the cars lights weren't on so the pedestrian may never have seen the car. And that's before the evidence that Uber had disabled the cars automated breaking system and the driver wasn't paying attention.  

 

So lets stop assuming the pedestrian didn't look or take due diligence until there is evidence to back up such a claim.

[jagdtigger]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

If you in a car hit anyone, regardless of any circumstances you are at fault.

That is pure BS. So even if i drive slowly but i hit someone because he stepped out from behind a van inside my breaking distance i will be fault for the his idiocy?!

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

That is pure BS. So even if i drive slowly but i hit someone because he stepped out from behind a van inside my breaking distance i will be fault for the his idiocy?!

yes, that's what they said, several times now.  If you are going so fast you can't stop when someone steps out from behind a van then it's your fault.

[jagdtigger]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

yes, that's what they said, several times now.  If you are going so fast you can't stop when someone steps out from behind a van then it's your fault.

You can hit someone even at 30 km/h if that genetical waste steps out from coverage(van, semi, etc) when you are few meters away(or just unexpectedly decides to cross)......... Not to mention smombies. Its just dumb to even think about what if scenarios in these zones, if they actually exist then thats a loud sign of the extra low IQ of that nation.

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

You can hit someone even at 30 km/h if that genetical waste steps out from coverage(van, semi, etc) when you are few meters away(or just unexpectedly decides to cross)......... Not to mention smombies. Its just dumb to even think about what if scenarios in these zones, if they actually exist then thats a loud sign of the extra low IQ of that nation.

so drive at 15Kph.   Whats so dumb about driving to the conditions?  you are talking like it is impossible to drive unless you are going so fast you can't stop.

 

If the rules say drive slow enough that you can stop in the event of anything like that happening then drive so you can stop in the event that something like that happens, it's not rocket science.  We have those zones in Australia, they are called shared zones and they work very well.  The only people who mess up in them are idiots who don't understand how to drive to the conditions or think they have some god given right to drive like a fuckbag because everything is stupid.

[TechyBen]

52 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

That is pure BS. So even if i drive slowly but i hit someone because he stepped out from behind a van inside my breaking distance i will be fault for the his idiocy?!

If I wave knives about and you happen to open your front door and get hit by a knife, it's not my problem... right?

 

Everyone will reply "but this is different it's a car", but... shock... plot twist, 100 years ago it was the Car that was a stupid idea. Big hunk of metal being thrown at innocent bystanders. Plus, my "waving knives about" is basically what aircraft and helicopters do, so we have MASSIVE laws to protect innocent bystanders from them. Because it's not ok to park your helicopter in my lawn, or even a public highway, just because pedestrians can see it and run scared for their lives...

 

So why should a car be different? Or a horse, rollerblades, hoverboard or the starship enterprise?