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

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

so drive at 15Kph.   Whats so dumb about driving to the conditions?

Look, there is always a breaking distance no matter how slowly you go and when some steps into that zone its not your fault. End of story. If someone thinks otherwise then IDK how that idiot got so high that he can decide "hey make a kill zone where no rules apply"... Im done with this insane idiocy.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Look, there is always a breaking distance no matter how slowly you go and when some steps into that zone its not your fault. End of story. If someone thinks otherwise then IDK how that idiot got so high that he can decide "hey make a kill zone where no rules apply"... Im done with this insane idiocy.

Failure to understand nor accept the reality in front of them is not everyone else's idiocy.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

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

If they want to park the enterprise in my back yard I will let them.   just sayin'

[leadeater]

2 hours 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?!

Then you were not traveling at a safe speed within the zone, they aren't very big, usually just a large intersection by a lot of shops. There is also no stopping allowed for any length of time so there are no visual obstructions aiding in visibility, it's impossible to step out from behind which does not exist.

 

But I mean all this info can be found with a quick google search so... you can either do that or argue an incorrect point.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Failure to understand nor accept the reality in front of them is not everyone else's idiocy.

Still thinks it's a regular road hence cars have a right to travel fast or at the speed limit, it's not a road nor do they typically have a posted speed limit at all and if there is one that is not a goal because you aren't on the road.

 

Maybe he drives at 50KM/h in tight car parks? Literally the same concept, drive safely.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

If they want to park the enterprise in my back yard I will let them.   just sayin'

Well, they do crash land it in a few places at times. *splat*

[mynameisjuan]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.

Thats a slippery slope.  We are not saying its impossible to drive but how can you blame the driver for every instance. 

 

Mommy taught me at 4 to look both ways before crossing an only go when safe. Some people cant wrap that around their heads. 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thats a slippery slope.  We are not saying its impossible to drive but how can you blame the driver for every instance. 

 

Mommy taught me at 4 to look both ways before crossing an only go when safe. Some people cant wrap that around their heads. 

Make sure you fully understand to conversation before diving head first into the pool without looking.

 

They're talking about a very specific situation where normal road rules do not apply.

[mynameisjuan]

11 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Make sure you fully understand to conversation before diving head first into the pool without looking.

 

They're talking about a very specific situation where normal road rules do not apply.

Thats whole point about my comments. I am not talking about normal road situations 

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thats whole point about my comments. I am not talking about normal road situations 

My apologies then, it wasn't entirely clear from your post.

[dalekphalm]

10 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. 

The woman probably did look both ways before crossing.

 

Remember that the vehicle was travelling fairly fast, and when she was hit, she was halfway across the road already.

 

Based on other evidence (people recording footage in the same area at a similar time at night with various recording devices (dash cams, cellphones, etc), the visual conditions were much brighter in real life compared to what the Uber dash cam showed. So had the driver been in control, she probably would have seen the lady 2-3 blocks away.

 

And certainly the self driving system should have seen her and stopped way before it became a danger, since the vehicle has MULTIPLE LIDAR and RADAR sensors that can see in the dark.

 

We don't know that she didn't look. In fact, that's one piece of evidence we will likely never know (unless there is a currently unknown camera that was pointing at her as she started crossing).

 

Certainly there can be situations where a person crosses dangerously and is at fault - and that's certainly what it looked like at first when Uber released their god-awful shit Dash Cam footage. But as more details came out, it became clear that the woman crossing the road was not likely to be at fault.

 

The Uber situation, specifically, was almost certainly a combination of:

1. Terrible Uber software that disabled Volvo systems that would have saved that lady's life, and the Uber software didn't take over and do it's job

2. The operator was not paying attention (while understandable, since it's difficult to pay attention 100% of the time when you're not in control - understandable does not make it okay).

 

Had either #1 or #2 not happened, the pedestrian would have likely been saved.

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Based on other evidence (people recording footage in the same area at a similar time at night with various recording devices (dash cams, cellphones, etc), the visual conditions were much brighter in real life compared to what the Uber dash cam showed. So had the driver been in control, she probably would have seen the lady 2-3 blocks away.

There is no doubt the camera was crap quality. I cant argue that. 

 

16 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

We don't know that she didn't look. In fact, that's one piece of evidence we will likely never know (unless there is a currently unknown camera that was pointing at her as she started crossing).

I suggest watching the video again, its on youtube. She crossed 2 lanes with about 1 mile of view of the traffic then casually walked with her head facing the other direction. This wasnt like someone looked both ways but there was a nearby corner and car came screaming around. This was a wide open straight highway with about 30 secs of travel time for the cars. 

 

It appears she crossed after a car passed but only at a walking pace, no awareness of surrounding, while still having her earbuds in. 

 

And to top it off people timed the moment from seeing her to hitting her and even if the driver was paying attention it would have been the same outcome. 

 

Again, the road has rules to keep people safe, but people who choose to cross in a non-crosswalk or heavy traffic, of in the dead of night need to know the risk and stay alert.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

There is no doubt the camera was crap quality. I cant argue that. 

 

I suggest watching the video again, its on youtube. She crossed 2 lanes with about 1 mile of view of the traffic then casually walked with her head facing the other direction. This wasnt like someone looked both ways but there was a nearby corner and car came screaming around. This was a wide open straight highway with about 30 secs of travel time for the cars.

While she likely wasn't paying as much attention as she should during the cross, when people say "look both ways", they mean a very specific thing: Looking in both directions before starting the crossing.

 

Because we never see the start of her crossing, we cannot ever know if she looked both ways.

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

It appears she crossed after a car passed but only at a walking pace, no awareness of surrounding, while still having her earbuds in. 

 

And to top it off people timed the moment from seeing her to hitting her and even if the driver was paying attention it would have been the same outcome.

All of those timings (I myself did the math on it when the accident first happened, it's buried in that thread) are based on the moment you can see her on the shit camera released by Uber. These timings are useless and do not provide a real world view of what the vehicle, nor the driver saw.

 

As I said, based on evidence provided by dozens of people who live in the area, visibility at that time of day is far superior to what the Dash Cam showed. The driver would have been able to see the person exit the side of the road and cross in entirety - thus easily having enough time to stop, slow down, or swerve.

 

It only looks like there's no time, because the Dash Cam is so shit that it blows out the shadows to total black, so it appears as if the woman magically appeared out of nowhere right in front of the vehicle. The evidence as as talked about above shows that this is an unrealistic view of the lighting conditions.

 

In addition to that, the LIDAR and RADAR systems would have immediately been able to "see" her cross, since both systems can see in near/total darkness.

 

So timing the moment we see her is entirely irrelevant, because the moment we see her is not the same as the moment the driver would have seen her, nor the moment the car's internal systems would have seen her.

 

I too fell into that trap, when the story first broke. I was wrong. I was using incorrect and incomplete data to come to my conclusion at the time.

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Again, the road has rules to keep people safe, but people who choose to cross in a non-crosswalk or heavy traffic, of in the dead of night need to know the risk and stay alert.

Yes, certainly, there is risk involved. And there's no doubt the woman has some small amount of blame, since she should have never crossed where she did.

 

But that does not change the fact that both the AI system and the Driver should have been able to minimize (eg: save her life, even if she still got injured) the accident, if not avoid it entirely.

 

Just because she did something foolish does not absolve the driver and vehicle of any responsibility. In this case, there's shared responsibility, though most of it still rests on the Driver and the broken autonomous system.

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

...

I agree with almost all of that

 

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Just because she did something foolish does not absolve the driver and vehicle of any responsibility. In this case, there's shared responsibility, though most of it still rests on the Driver and the broken autonomous system.

I still dont see how that is at all the drivers or ubers fault or how they take responsibility. 

 

If the driver and vehicle are both following rules I cant see how its their responsibility. 

[dalekphalm]

29 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I agree with almost all of that

 

I still dont see how that is at all the drivers or ubers fault or how they take responsibility. 

 

If the driver and vehicle are both following rules I cant see how its their responsibility. 

But they didn't follow the rules. Part of the rules is to try and avoid an accident.

 

Otherwise people could just run down pedestrians who step out onto the road indiscriminately.

 

Also, the driver wasn't following the rules of the road:

1. They were using a mobile device while in operation of a vehicle

2. Specifically, they were watching a TV show, during the moment of collision.

3. Even under Uber rules, the "operator" is supposed to take over in case of emergencies, and therefore must remain attentive.

4. The vehicle, if we can it "the driver" did not attempt to avoid an obstacle in the road. The computers likely registered an obstruction, and then simply initiated no action - this is likely due to poor programming, or an as of unknown/undiscovered software defect.

 

And that's the point - there's plenty of evidence that suggests the driver was negligent, and also that the vehicle was not safe for autonomous operation.

[TechyBen]

7 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thats a slippery slope.  We are not saying its impossible to drive but how can you blame the driver for every instance. 

 

Mommy taught me at 4 to look both ways before crossing an only go when safe. Some people cant wrap that around their heads. 

Because the current laws are that cars have right of way when travelling to be expected to be able to stop within the safe stopping distance, however:

People drive dangerously.

Cars fail, but you/I would be hurt, not the car.

Areas have obstacles/illegal parking.

She said that, not because people are allowed to drive dangerously, but because they do, regardless of the risk/law/safety to others.

 

Your mother certainly did not say that to suggest people should drive dangerously!

 

We could theoretically get to the point of a self driving car (AI or no AI) being able to read a road and know where every possible pedestrian is/could be, slow down at those spots, and then go 251mph in the spots where no pedestrians are. However, just because it could also "avoid" any pedestrian while it was travelling at 251mph, should we? Instead we may suggest not travelling at 251mph in such a zone, because of other factors.

 

These could be mechanical failure, or could be a pedestrian walking in front of it. That's the thing. We don't know if the pedestrian will walk in front of the car, but we do know the car would win, and the pedestrian lose!

 

So, knowing those facts, do we say a car should, or should not slow down in areas where there are pedestrians?

[Master Delta Chief]

On 10/30/2018 at 3:48 PM, dalekphalm said:

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.

Definitely all of this.

Sure, it'll happen one day that an artificial driver would encounter an unavoidable accident, but I don't think we particularly should be choosing on how the AI would react. If AI becomes sophisticated enough that it can think for itself, it should decide on it's own on what the best possible outcome would be for not only the driver, but also for the possible pedestrian. As long as we focus on both that and the development of minimizing damage and injuries, it should be alright. 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thats a slippery slope.  We are not saying its impossible to drive but how can you blame the driver for every instance. 

 

Mommy taught me at 4 to look both ways before crossing an only go when safe. Some people cant wrap that around their heads. 

 

How is it a slipper slope, I've driven in these zones plenty of times.   The only way you could hit someone is if you closed your eyes or drove too fast.  Either way it's your fault.

 

Really not too sure why this concept is so hard for some people to understand.   The conditions do not lend themselves to a situation where the driver is unjustly blamed for an accident.

[mynameisjuan]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

How is it a slipper slope, I've driven in these zones plenty of times.   The only way you could hit someone is if you closed your eyes or drove too fast.  Either way it's your fault.

 

Really not too sure why this concept is so hard for some people to understand.   The conditions do not lend themselves to a situation where the driver is unjustly blamed for an accident.

So I can just go walk out side and run across the road blindly and just blame the driver. Good to know. I guess its all the faults of truck drivers when people jump in front to commit suicide, the driver should have paid attention more, or train conductors that hit people and are now scared for life. 

 

You know, because the pedestrian made a conscious choice to cross, how it making a concision choice to jump in front a moving vehicle any different. 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

So I can just go walk out side and run across the road blindly and just blame the driver. Good to know. I guess its all the faults of truck drivers when people jump in front to commit suicide, the driver should have paid attention more, or train conductors that hit people and are now scared for life. 

Well no because that is happening on a road where pedestrians are not allowed to walk and vehicles do have right of way. In the shared zone yes you can jump in front of a car, it should be going slow enough to either A) Not kill you ever or cause major injury B) Stop before hitting you. The shared zones aren't roads for cars, cars are allowed there but have no right of way and neither do they have any right to drive at speed either.

 

Shared zone != road, standard road rules do not apply and neither does any other commonly understood rules or norms. You don't drive like a fool in a car park either do you? There are plenty of situations where you are not traveling at speed or near the speed limit because it is not safe to do so that aren't these shared zones.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Master Delta Chief said:

Sure, it'll happen one day that an artificial driver would encounter an unavoidable accident, but I don't think we particularly should be choosing on how the AI would react. If AI becomes sophisticated enough that it can think for itself, it should decide on it's own on what the best possible outcome would be for not only the driver, but also for the possible pedestrian. As long as we focus on both that and the development of minimizing damage and injuries, it should be alright. 

You're assuming that autonomous vehicles will start to use true AI that make their own decisions outside of predefined programming. Sure. That might eventually happen.

 

But I guarantee you, 100%, that the "current" type of Autonomous vehicle subsystem will encounter an unavoidable accident before true "AI" is developed.

 

Furthermore, you just introduced an entirely new set of ethical conditions we must analyze, on top of the questions currently being asked - how much freedom do we give a real AI in decision making where human lives are at stake?

 

So no, it won't "just be alright", because the decision the AI makes might be okay with you, but not others. It might be okay with the majority of people - or maybe it won't be.

 

That's why we must ask and analyze these questions, so we can decide what Society as a whole can stomach. When an Autonomous vehicle is faced with a situation where every decision will result in loss of life, how will it react, and is that okay with what society demands?

 

You can say "Well it'll just decide to save the most amount of life", but how does that work? Just pure numbers? Save 2 people instead of 1? What if there's an equal chance that an equal number of people will be risked? What if one is a baby and the other is a teenager? Save the baby? Save the teenager?

 

Humans make these decisions subconsciously all the time. People have claimed otherwise in these threads by saying "People just react", but that is them making a subconscious decision.

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well no because that is happening on a road where pedestrians are not allowed to walk and vehicles do have right of way. In the shared zone yes you can jump in front of a car, it should be going slow enough to either A) Not kill you ever or cause major injury B) Stop before hitting you. The shared zones aren't roads for cars, cars are allowed there but have no right of way and neither do they have any right to drive at speed either.

 

Shared zone != road, standard road rules do not apply and neither does any other commonly understood rules or norms. You don't drive like a fool in a car park either do you? There are plenty of situations where you are not traveling at speed or near the speed limit because it is not safe to do so that aren't these shared zones.

While I agree the problem lies with crosswalks. The only part of a shared road where a person has the right of way and signs for caution. 

 

This lady was hit on a freeway which 2 or more lanes are not shared roads. This is why J walking is a law, not enforced like other laws but still. This accident wasnt in the city 20mph "safe zone"  or school zone with a cross walk and caution signs. 

 

-Jaywalking

-No crosswalk

-Nightime

-Black clothes

-No street lights

-No safety light required by most laws

-No paying attention to traffic

-Headphones in

-40mph zone

 

Take the AI and the driver out of this situation and still tell me she is not at fault. I havent been saying anything about AI or the driver because these are common sense decisions that a person has to make them selves. 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

While I agree the problem lies with crosswalks. The only part of a shared road where a person has the right of way and signs for caution. 

 

This lady was hit on a freeway which 2 or more lanes are not shared roads. This is why J walking is a law, not enforced like other laws but still. This accident wasnt in the city 20mph "safe zone"  or school zone with a cross walk and caution signs. 

 

-Jaywalking

-No crosswalk

-Nightime

-Black clothes

-No street lights

-No safety light required by most laws

-No paying attention to traffic

-Headphones in

-40mph zone

 

Take the AI and the driver out of this situation and still tell me she is not at fault. I havent been saying anything about AI or the driver because these are common sense decisions that a person has to make them selves. 

Actually there was a street light basically right on top of her.

Spoiler

 

There were street lights on both sides of the street, and she was only a few meters away from one, with another one a little farther away on her other side. Granted, the video makes it seem like it's pitch black out - but that's just because the dashcam footage is near worthless. Go to 3-seconds into the video, where you just see the pedestrian start to emerge from shadows.

 

Now compared to this:

Spoiler

 

Go to the 16 second mark. See how far you can see down the road? The woman was illuminated the entire time she was crossing.

 

So while the rest of your points are valid - this is in no way comparable to those "shared" zones people are talking about, but we must keep the facts accurate. While it was night time, visibility was quite good, and there were street lights all over the place.

[mynameisjuan]

25 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Actually there was a street light basically right on top of her.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

There were street lights on both sides of the street, and she was only a few meters away from one, with another one a little farther away on her other side. Granted, the video makes it seem like it's pitch black out - but that's just because the dashcam footage is near worthless. Go to 3-seconds into the video, where you just see the pedestrian start to emerge from shadows.

 

Now compared to this:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Go to the 16 second mark. See how far you can see down the road? The woman was illuminated the entire time she was crossing.

 

So while the rest of your points are valid - this is in no way comparable to those "shared" zones people are talking about, but we must keep the facts accurate. While it was night time, visibility was quite good, and there were street lights all over the place.

I know about the crappy cameras and that was the first thing I brought up. 

 

People keep missing the point, I said:

43 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

ake the AI and the driver out of this situation and still tell me she is not at fault. I havent been saying anything about AI or the driver because these are common sense decisions that a person has to make them selves. 

This isnt because of uber shit AI or vision system, its about the fact that most people here say that under every circumstance the driver is ALWAYS at fault and no responsibility is placed on the person. 

 

I am not an idiot thus I would have looked, waited for a good time to cross and then crossed because I have common sense and dont put my life in the hands of someone driving.  

 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

I know about the crappy cameras and that was the first thing I brought up.

That's just a side point. You said that there were no street lights. That's factually incorrect, so I was correcting that oversight.

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

People keep missing the point, I said:

This isnt because of uber shit AI or vision system, its about the fact that most people here say that under every circumstance the driver is ALWAYS at fault and no responsibility is placed on the person.

I agree and disagree with this point.

 

I agree with this part:

Quote

the fact that most people here say that under every circumstance the driver is ALWAYS at fault and no responsibility is placed on the person.

I agree here. This is wrong. There are definitely cases where the pedestrian is either fully, or partially at fault.

 

I disagree, because with the Uber crash, at least, the driver/Uber was at least partially at fault. Had the driver been driving a regular vehicle, they likely wouldn't have killed the pedestrian. They might have still struck her, but at a MUCH slower speed, since they would have braked immediately.

 

As to whether the pedestrian is at partial fault? I'll let the courts decide that. I personally think she's definitely partially at fault, since it was a stupid place to cross, even if a driver could still see her pretty easily.

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

I am not an idiot thus I would have looked, waited for a good time to cross and then crossed because I have common sense and dont put my life in the hands of someone driving. 

That's fantastic - and more people should do that. But there are definitely times when that doesn't happen, and you can't just say "oh well" and run their dumbasses over without trying to stop.