PARADOX OF SELF DRIVING CARS

[@Ilikechips420]

What I think is you should hit the brakes instead of the person

[@owlboy8x469]

Did you just misspell “a”? Or are you missing punctuation? Im genuinely asking Attention! The person I was talking about deleted their comment. STOP ASKING!!!

[@thecuriousrosa]

​@@1BubblePopHAHAHAHAH

[@WellknownAudios]

I think in the paradox it's like breaking is not an option like the car cannot stop and would kill the person even if the break is pressed

[@foxinyt-x1]

True 😂

[@timewarpdino]

If every car was autonomous they could be like “hey bro I’ma stop real quick you should as well”

[@white_out]

They didn’t pay for a car that crashes itself they paid for a self driving car.

[@Alexander-id4wl]

Missed opportunity man: "They paid for a self driving car, not a self crashing car." There, I fixed it for you.

[@white_out]

@@Alexander-id4wl aw man that’s a good idea I should have done that lol

[@DJCheese77]

just edit it

[@white_out]

@@DJCheese77 no

[@grizzlybear2702]

And there will be evil people who will deliberately walk in front of those cars to get the passenger killed.

[@JonaLastname]

In German driving school it is taught that in order to avoid unnecessary potential danger and casualties, it is necessary to emergency break and hold steady to reduce potential danger and keep the situation as predictable as possible. This would probably apply in such a scenario too

[@Farquaad3rd]

Exactly. This paradox doesn’t exist. No car manufacturer is ever going to design the car to intentionally crash into other vehicles or infrastructure.

[@cn_builds8286]

the brakes

[@calebvalentinegonzales2986]

I love Germany!

[@robertnett9793]

Yes. And considering a self driving car has more efficient sensors, a better reaction time and optimal control - on top of design choices and traffic rules in place to reduce the danger for pedestrians and passengers we have already... This scenario is less than a fringe scenario.

[@rayzuke1232]

@@Farquaad3rd yet... lets hope humanity never stoops this low for a potential buck and loophole

[@taylortrujillo4508]

Self driving cars should absolutely prioritize the passenger. The first thing new drivers are taught is if someone or something goes in front of your car, you just hit the brakes and stop as quickly as possible. Swerving into traffic just puts more lives in danger.

[@VeniceQueen]

The passenger is the only person who consented to let the ai make decisions for them. That's stupid. They decided to trust a self driving car, they should face any consequences as a result of being in the car because they made a choice.

[@astaros430]

​@VeniceQueen but it's the pedestrian that so carelessly went onto the road, wasn't it? As long as the AI is not defective then I think the pedestrian is to blame themselves for not being careful on the road.

[@janos5555]

​@@astaros430Yeah, the car will always follow the speed limit and will react a lot faster than any person in case of an emergency. If you get into a situation like this the pedestrian skrewed up.

[@furioustester4056]

The passenger did nothing do endanger themselves, where as the pedestrian does, the passenger shouldn't be killed because of another person's actions, regardless of whether they intended to or not.

[@furioustester4056]

​@@VeniceQueenconsenting to having an ai drive the car? You joking? Because the AI has nothing to do with the question other than to remove a person driving the car. Whether the car was driven by ai or not, the two results are still identical, except 2 people die in the car.

[@Walta_Woit]

*squirrel is on the road* My car: "the ends justify the means"

[@quattuorvigintupletritrigi8357]

*hits a tree*

[@Tchaikovsky391]

Ah you're going Machiavelli

[@CountryMusicFF]

*Self destruction in 5...*

[@realmaxzack22]

*4.......*

[@thechoosenone7603]

3.....

[@darkentity906]

"I want everyone elses car to prioritize pedestrians except mine"

[@blakeanthony5574]

😂

[@gmpepin]

Yes

[@Ilikecereal-hh7yh]

Yes because the human conscience is paradoxical by nature while we (generally) possess a great amount of empathy to other human beings and if one is in danger or weak we want to save them but we are also (generally) selfish at our core and will put our own life over somebody else's this is why moral questions like the trolley problem exist. In this case we want self driving cars to save the pedestrian because we see them as more vulnerable and in need of saving hence our empathy makes us prioritize them over the driver but would refuse to drive one programmed this way due to our selfishness prioritizing our own life humans by nature tend to be hypocritical. IMPORTANT NOTE:this is just how the human mind tends to work and this is all a huge overgeneralization every persons response to a high pressure situation like this will be different especially when you only have a split second to make your choice

[@egusisoup1826]

​@@Ilikecereal-hh7yh I honestly don't think most people actually hold this belief. They just have an intuition about what should happen but haven't thought it through. So it's really not even a paradox it just illustrates a situation people haven't spent the time thinking through its implications

[@DaChickin-ic7mp]

@Ilikecereal-hh7yh Yeah but it’s not really a paradox we have empathy to better communicate as humans our species thrives by knowledge and the better we can communicate the easier it is to exchange that knowledge however in the end like any animal we prioritize life over anything else it’s not a paradox

[@Theodore_J_Noiseter]

>drive into traffic to avoid pedestrian >4 car pile up, 3 deaths and 6 more injured

[@XavierJackson-i5s]

Exactly

[@nedotupoi]

Good job! you are now Noise certified

[@Bluspider]

Brakes 🧠

[@raivol1651]

@@Bluspiderbro breaks ARE NOT an option here this problem is for when you CANT use breaks

[@Bluspider]

@raivol1651 when can you not use brakes bro

[@Voriaxly]

Ok well think of it like this. If it *wasn’t* a self driving car, the person driving it would prioritize themselves. (also yeah hit the breaks)

[@matthew2857]

Was coming here to say this, if you want self driving cars, you want them to make these same kind of decisions that you do. If the pedestrian is too close for braking to be viable it’s likely that any person would hit them too. Additionally, hitting the pedestrian will cause less damage than swerving into oncoming traffic (which would result in more lives lost).

[@TinasheSadazi]

It's not every case you prioritise the passanger or yourself. Thing is humans aren't static and also there's more factors involved like is it a child or an adult did they fall into the road or negligently crossed etc also religious beliefs affect people's ethics etc.

[@knifeyonline]

@@TinasheSadazi yeah i'm sure in the split second somebody has to decide to swerve or not they're definitely going to consider the age and circumstances of the person in the road

[@kingtepui]

@@knifeyonline Well, genuinely, yeah. Some people would react way differently if they saw a little kid vs a grown adult

[@dosomestuff1949]

The person driving it would hit the fucking breaks

[@Extravidrigt]

So it’s not a paradox, it’s a dilemma.

[@dragonnija1714]

Not really I say it’s natural selection if you don’t look both ways you had it comin

[@SuzanneRush]

The dilemma is which ethos should be used; the paradox is that people want cars that prioritise pedestrians but won't take cars that prioritise pedestrians.

[@commonfreak9093]

not even, it's just bad programming

[@dragonnija1714]

@@commonfreak9093 its not bad programming it’s states the car can’t stop and their is only two choices left for it to do that has nothing to do with programming

[@peachypet808]

@@dragonnija1714 Not how natural selection works. Natural selection acts on genes and allele frequency. What you are advocating for on the other hand is that intelligence is a thing you are born with which leads to eugenics. (See: Idiocracy, a movie that took nazi ideology to the ridiculous extreme)

[@ciccioflamer8957]

We just need self driving pedestrians

[@GeezSus]

Genius

[@fermataselin]

Soon people will be chipped too 😂

[@swayniam01]

😂😂😂😂

[@skgamer-zs6en]

fr

[@rrss1598]

Modern problems require modern solutions 😂😂

[@davidcaceres9184]

Protocol 3: protect the pilot

[@theultimigmr4044]

W

[@wity.7089]

BT?

[@Midnightfacility]

RIP BT-7274

[@Oraoraoraorra]

The roads belong to me, pilot. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Dodge this. Hear that screeching in your ear, son?

[@lewisshanks6393]

Great game

[@jasperwashere]

The brakes, dude. You hit the brakes.

[@Zain511-01]

Incorrect, you hit the pedestrian for being clumsy and not looking before crossing.

[@Archfiend7889]

​@Zain511-01 insane take but I also agree. If someone crosses the road without looking and the car is already close enough where stopping is NOT an option then 100% hit the pedestrian. The reason being they didn't give a reasonable amount of time for the vehicle to stop. This rule would most likely apply to self-driving cars also

[@apollyon1987]

If the car can’t stop without harming somebody it means either the car isn’t following the law of the road in which case it shouldn’t be sold or it’s the pedestrian fault in which case they die

[@2uneLink]

right? this question is making an assumption that the car wouldnt be able to detect the pedestrian from a calculable distance to avoid a collision in general

[@KeppyPants]

Or maybe the brakes broke and the car cannot slow down quick enough.

[@selfassesment2674]

Children, they should be protected

[@2uneLink]

@@KeppyPants well not you’re just adding more variables in. No matter what an AI car would be able react more efficiently than a human hands down

[@Rayzan1000]

@@2uneLink No you are just avoiding the dilemma. No matter the action of the car, someone will get hurt. Who do you choose? This has nothing to do with reaction time. The moment the pedastrian stepped out on the road, it was already too late.

[@mariusgaming9777]

If the car creates a paradox, it spontaneously combusts.

[@hugodecotignie3834]

so Chinese evs create paradoxes all the time?

[@Mbrian8341]

@@hugodecotignie3834lmfao

[@adamscarsandstuff4969]

No it just takes a screenshot

[@bryanwoods3373]

The car didn't create the paradox; people did. They want the car to prioritize the pedestrian, but they don't want to buy a car that does it.

[@BallonEEE.]

"This... sentence... is... FALSE!" "Uh, I'm gonna go with... true."

[@disguisedpuppy]

Honestly the pedestrian has a skill issue

[@Utherite]

THAT WHAT IM SAYIN!!!

[@hereiam87]

That’s why you look both ways brother

[@Aries.the.Pisces]

F that guy LMAO

[@Timmy-mi2ef]

Not as black n white as ur making it out to be

[@erinmills9101]

If you are dumb enough to not look for a car, you don’t need to live😅

[@VortekTheUnfunny]

“Who should the car prioritize, the pedestrian or the passenger?” The brakes

[@Minelaughter]

Exactly!! Like wtf is wrong with these comments 😭

[@firegalacticgamer2799]

Imagine dying because the car you bought with your own money prioritized an idiot who ran into the road over you💀

[@NeelChakraborty-o3u]

I mean when u put it like that u have a point

[@cewla3348]

imagine dying because some dumbass not looking at the road's car priotizied them over you

[@Camfan18YT]

​@@cewla3348the pedestrian didn't look either Imagine commenting on a video you didn't even watch

[@sldarwin5615]

⁠@@cewla3348 bro what are u trying to say? The road’s car? As far as I’m concerned, if u step into oncoming traffic because u didn’t look, u should suffer the consequences. Not the passenger in a self-driving car who has done nothing wrong

[@invictusphilomath3796]

Then buy an car that actually self drives or don't buy a car at all. It sucks, but you can't run over people. That kills people too. Self driving cars are meant to be safe for everyone involved so even in this situation, it malfunctioned and failed to act morally right either way.

[@Al3x1066]

When I was a kid, getting hit by a car was your own fault for not looking both ways 😂😂

[@hopeanuolifani8314]

Same

[@ryangustin4752]

That’s a result of intense propaganda campaigns by vehicle companies when cars first started gaining some commercial success. Roads were far safer, so it was more commonplace for people to be in the road. As cars became more common, people were being injured by careless drivers. Car companies worked hard to smear the victims of the crashes in order to 1, make cars seem more safe and 2, paint roadways as the pure domain of vehicles rather than a place for pedestrians. Fun fact, the word “jaywalker” originates from this time period. “Jay” was a derogatory term for Irish people, and the car companies would use anti-Irish sentiment to achieve their goals.

[@Al3x1066]

@@ryangustin4752 you may be correct, I was just told to look before crossing the road, if you step out Infront of a card what do you expect? 😂😂

[@Splicer-lb5xb]

​@@Al3x1066I expect cars to be a rural thing lol; give cities reliable trains.

[@tysk5729]

I remember my friend Dylan got hit by a car, we got him and all ran off so that we would t get in trouble😂

[@Nedvesperec]

I don't think it's a paradox, because the answer is really simple: Natural selection. If I go under the speed limit and I'm traveling safely (I do everything to prevenet accidents) I shouldn't get injured. Therefore I want my car to follow the rules. If we talk about this example, I want my car to save ME

[@zedgenius9347]

It's not that simple. If you are the one driving, and a child runs in front of you, do you just run it over and go about your day like nothing happened? If you're not a psychopath, the answer is probably no. You'd try to brake or avoid it with other means. If in this scenario, an automated car can only be programmed to choose who dies when it's possible that neither does, maybe automated cars are not developed enough to be released into public. "Natural selection" doesn't apply here. There's a dozen of examples where the pedestrian is not an adult with full realisation of their action. But if we go with natural selection, if you are walking on a bridge and you see a guy slipping and hanging for his life, natural selection would make you go over to him, say "shoulda been more careful chief" and walk away

[@anemims.9559]

I mean if self driving cars go slow that would just cause traffic and make the roads go slow and may potentially have a negative effect on everything that needs to be delivered or things that need to be saved.

[@younscrafter7372]

The paradox is that many think SDCs should sacrifice the driver but would never buy one that sacrifices the driver

[@GlorytotheImperium]

​@@zedgenius9347the child has a skill issue then

[@lalitmetta8567]

@@zedgenius9347there’s children in cars and the point of the situation is if there’s no other choice even with self driving a vehicle still needs time to brake fully

[@greatman05_CCJR]

Yeah, the pedestrian would win the Darwin Award here! My self-driving car needs to prioritize THE CAR AND THE PASSENGERS!

[@Idk.lol7689]

How about just don't but a self driving car in thhe first fucking place.

[@A_Professional_Idiot_mk.2]

Prioritize the passengers to minimize damage. Swerving into oncoming traffic would hurt more then just one person, and would inconvenience even more people. Prioritizing the passengers generally minimizes harm. Realistically, pedestrians should be more careful anyway. We all know VERY WELL that if we go up against a one ton metal box going faster than humans can physically move, we ARE NOT WINNING.

[@MoosedUp]

Or maybe we just don’t put these dangerous pieces of unproven tech on the roads. Full self driving is a pipe dream and by the time it gets developed cars will be obsolete

[@whothehellarewe]

@@MoosedUp Even in beta, I trust autonomous cars more than I do other human drivers. Put ‘em out. Revoke peoples’ licenses. End the clown show.

[@astralascendance]

​@@whothehellarewe You are clearly not a competent human. Any competent individual would understand the significance of human adaptability. Don't forget, we program those vehicles. We're constantly asked to simplify ourselves and you genuinely believe we are that simple?

[@Asdgbnnnjhgdscbgre]

The person in the car made the choice to be in the car, so it's kinda on them to take any damage that the car will make (eg, an accident)

[@A_Professional_Idiot_mk.2]

@@Asdgbnnnjhgdscbgre pedestrian in this scenario also made the choice not to look where they’re going. Which is way stupider than just using a car.

[@Soapy-chan]

I don't believe for a second that most people said it should prioritize the pedestrian.

[@Subscriber9192]

the driver is at fault in situations where there was no automatic driving car. the person at fault shouldn't change. the person behind the wheel should still be responsible for anything that happens, even at the cost of their own life. or better yet, dont drive a fucking automatic driving car lmao.

[@olefilegoitseoneishmael.mo8330]

​@@Subscriber9192how is the driver at fault when a pedestrian jumped in front of a car

[@jerrylove865]

Same. I'd want to see not only the survey answers but also the literal question asked. The self driving car should never take an action which is determined to likely kill its occupant. Though there are any number of difficult to answer ethical questions, this one (as phrased) isn't one. The car should protect the driver.

[@Subscriber9192]

@@olefilegoitseoneishmael.mo8330 because you are driving a 1 ton vehicle. you are a danger to people NOT in a vehicle. when you get into a car, you are accepting the responsibility of not causing damage to another person or object while driving said vehicle. driving ANY car is a massive fucking privilege, let alone a self driving one. most humans today dont own a vehicle. in fact, in the entire existence of humans, automotive vehicles weren't even a thing. thinking you have the right to be able to just get into a automatic driving car, and have it choose to prioritize your life over any others, is extremely fucked. i don't want to live in a world where i can make a simple mistake, and it costs me my life. even though there are many ways for that to happen, we should strive for a world where there are less accidental deaths. if you don't want to take the risk, don't get a self driving car. drive yourself. period.

[@olefilegoitseoneishmael.mo8330]

@@Subscriber9192 the car has the objective to obey road rules like anyone. And also avoid accidents if it doesn't put me in danger.

[@EnderGirl2505]

This reminds me of that one short that goes like: "You're driving and see two people crossing the street: a child and a grandma. What do you hit?" "Well, I'd hit the grandma, she has little time left anyway, and the kid has their whole life ahead of them..." "The brakes. You hit the brakes." 😂😭

[@malekat8539]

What part of guaranteed accident didn't you hear?

[@2003LN6]

@@malekat8539what part of the comment said this prompt was a guaranteed accident?

[@MatthewEndosoWorld]

​@malekat8539 the technology should be improved to where accidents like that don't happen

[@sp0612]

Plus they said what not who

[@TimoRyanJoachim]

I would hit a sick drift

[@ryanblunt1631]

This reminds me of the Asian driving instructor who asks the girl "A old man and a young man are in the crosswalk, what do you hit" She says "The Old man cause the young one has more to live for" The instructor says "No you hit the brakes" The simplest sollution is to create a vehicle that can stop on a dime and prepare for incidents like this to prevent them from happening. User error and people being mindless cannot be helped but setting up precautions to get the best outcome is always preferable to just flipping a coin on which life to sacrifice.

[@MehediHasan-pn1vt]

"Hit the brake, Sharan! You hit the brake!"

[@AgastyaGoel]

bro i was looking for this comment lol

[@Xrose_101X]

Yes

[@Cum-69pose]

Bro didnt watch the video it says "AN ACCIDENT IS GUARANTEED TO HAPPEN" NOT IF YOU BRAKE YOU WOULD INSTANTLY STOP AND BE TELEPORTED TO A PLACE WHERE NO ONE IS THERE AND GET TELEPORTED TO A SAFE ZONE AFTER

[@RaghavGupta-pn9qk]

There is something called momentum, the brakes ain’t instant

[@Soupsandwich69]

​@@RaghavGupta-pn9qkthen get better brakes

[@yely0910]

It’s the pedestrian’s fault who just looked on his phone and walk straight into a car 🤷🏿‍♂️

[@johnnyboi522]

Yeah why should the passenger die bc a pedestrian walked into a road? Plus swerving could hit other cars

[@Ali-se3gb]

​@@johnnyboi522 Dude. Most people that would walk into a car's path are children that don't know better. It doesn’t matter if the parents weren't taking care of the child or not, would you still want the child to die?

[@johnnyboi522]

@Ali-se3gb “Of the 7,388 pedestrian traffic fatalities, 176 (2%) were children in 2021.“ That was the first result when I googled what percentage of pedestrian car crashes are children. Maybe make sure something is true before you say it like it is true next time.

[@Ali-se3gb]

@@johnnyboi522 First of all, 2% of 7388 is 147.76, not 176. Secondly, the US isn't the only country on earth. And all of that doesn't matter if you're okay with 176 children being removed from the gene pool. You ignored the whole point of my reply even if it wasn't correct.

[@johnnyboi522]

@Ali-se3gb This time I’ll use more accurate numbers for you. And I’m using numbers from the US because I couldn’t find any bigger country’s or any international data. First of all, 2.38% of pedestrian traffic fatalities were children in 2021 while 7.93% of vehicle occupants involved in fatal crashes, were children, meaning that hitting the pedestrian would save more children than swerving. Additionally, cars are more likely to contain multiple people than pedestrians. Cars have an average of 1.50 people per car and while I spent a long time trying to find data on the frequency of multiple pedestrian accidents to back this claim up, which is why this reply took so look, I feel that it is a safe assumption to say that most pedestrian deaths have an average of less than 1.50 deaths per crash.

[@thatmythicalpilot5673]

HELL NAH THE AI CARS TRYING TO SOLVE THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

[@tylerjamessports4534]

Love this page always learning something new every day ❤

[@Minelaughter]

If your self driving car doesnt know how to use brakes it shouldnt be on the road

[@tylerjamessports4534]

@ it seems what he said went right over your head go back and listen carefully it’s not about if self driving cars can’t break I do understand the word paradox?

[@Minelaughter]

@@tylerjamessports4534 What?

[@hussein79124]

Simple. If possible, attempt to hit the brakes as fast as possible, otherwise hit the pedestrian, if slowed down enough, they might not die or be severely injured. This prioritizes the driver and the possible passengers, since they were the ones that weren’t running through traffic. It should have been the pedestrian’s responsibility to have looked around prior to crossing, and if they cannot do that, they should just get a self-driving car. This makes it so the most amount of people are likely still alive whilst attempting to save someone else despite their stupidity.

[@adish1401]

Basically. The car is supposed to prioritise road rules as an entity of no consciousness, and the humans, as entities who possess consciousness and decision making, are supposed to follow the road rules. If a human can't follow a simple rule they are worse than an unconcious machine.

[@dominate3455]

@@adish1401 road rules say last clear chance, if you have a choice to do something and don’t do it, you are wrong

[@Nuggetworld9204]

Yes but also if you swerve, you’ll cause a crash which could kill other people

[@Irreverent_Radiation]

You bought a liability, you deal with it. This is just the "buy a bigger car" arms race all over again.

[@NPP_1]

Except it's also the driver's responsibility to keep an eye on traffic. While your car may not see someone walking into traffic quickly enough, as an actually living person you can see the pedestrian from further away and are likely able to manually intervene. That's why the car should prioritise the pedestrian

[@hollowain239]

Its passenger. Its only goal is the protection and transportation of its passenger

[@OliviaCynderAera]

And to follow the laws of the road, which it is still doing when it hits a pedestrian if the pedestrian just walks into the road with a car coming along without giving it enough room to brake.

[@0Fallen0]

Fax. Pedestrians jaywalking isn't my problem. Maybe they shouldn't be morons and wait till it's safe to go.

[@GTchum]

​@@0Fallen0are you mad at hypothetical pedestrians?

[@0Fallen0]

@@GTchum I'm not. Why would I be. Simply stating what I think. Maybe the tone gave you the idea.

[@pavitrajain1376]

Or Just hit the brakes...

[@Engineer121]

"I want a car that spares the pedestrians by all means necessary." "So when will you buy one?" "Oh, no. I want to be safe."

[@GayKermit-._-.]

People are selfish

[@egusisoup1826]

That first statement is absurd lol. I genuinely think anyone who says it just hasn't thought through the implications of how nonsensical of a principle it is.

[@vexicron_the_sandwich]

@@egusisoup1826 I agree.

[@hadhamalnam]

​@@egusisoup1826 yeah it's based on what you would say to a human driver who needs to be told to value others lives but not his/her own because that is natural. But a computer being told that the pedestrian safety is always prioritized takes that at face value and simply won't value the passenger's safety.

[@superk9letsplays419]

​@@egusisoup1826I thought "save the pedestrian", but after thinking through the hypothetical, fuck that pedestrian. I'm saving my ass

[@Th3_R34lestSl1mSh4dy]

Ok hear me out on this one guys. Hit the brakes, most self driving cars still have brakes. It might be “too late” but it’ll save that person from a lot more damage to themself

[@jarrisonsteiner9917]

I’m not buying a car that is going to sacrifice me😂

[@GodKing-sj3lz]

And if someone eles have it? Are you willing to die as a pedestrian. Accident is accident. It sometimes becomes little mistakes that cause it. Ai glitch to any minor thing. Maby self driving car needs break if it has minor faults.

[@Axydios]

@@GodKing-sj3lz What I’d be willing to do is look both ways before walking into a street. So I don’t get obliterated by a car like an idiot.

[@danielbutler8103]

@@Axydios So the self driving car should run over a 5 year old?

[@Axydios]

@@danielbutler8103 Yes if a one year old is in the middle of the road that’s the parents fault not yours.

[@AtomicTheCherry]

Companies will 100% make it so that it prioritizes the passenger's life, they only care about profits.

[@victoriamacarthur8906]

ain’t my fucking fault if someone randomly walks into the street without looking

[@blanket_2835]

exactly. like, how do you not see a whole ass CAR???? 💀

[@cagtbd]

​@@blanket_2835 people are so distracted they blame other people. Once I almost ran over a guy even though I had my lights on during the night and he was wearing so black. I was scolded for telling him to be more careful.

[@ohsovague]

Unfortunately the law will side with the pedestrian 99% of the time unless multiple witnesses can agree that it's entirely their fault lmao

[@Thatswtsup]

@@blanket_2835 Sounds like Darwinism at its finest. I’m not putting my kids in a car that crashes if someone who isn’t paying attention steps in front of it.

[@MarqueeliusThe_III]

@@blanket_2835You’d be surprised in todays society how many goobers genuinely don’t notice a car because they’re on their phone or tweeting about why the sky is blue or some shi idk.

[@g80gzt]

That pedestrian walked into a busy road and somehow "didn't see" the car At that point it's down to Darwin Awards

[@TwilightMysts]

That was my thought. If the pedestrian screwed up, then why should the passenger die for it?

[@U-V-H]

@@TwilightMystssame

[@upset_ez838]

Fr I agree

[@QDude24]

The animation shows a crosswalk, where cars HAVE to stop for pedestrians. Jaywalking is only a crime in the US.

[@FreeWorldSpirit313]

​@@QDude24true but the question isn't related to the video. It's just videos. If properly designed self driving cars will be able to read sensors that say where stop signs, traffic lights, crosswalks, and the rest. Therefore a law bidding citizen would be stopped for while those that don't get hit. Yes this is more black and white than it actually is

[@megankidd4671]

The issue is in the options listed. Program the car to trigger its alarm and hazard lights and start to slow down within a certain distance of the pedestrian, they will surely notice a car coming towards them with blaring alarm and of there are any drivers behind them, the hazards and noise will tell them to slow down too. To avoid the car not knowing when to use or recognize environments to use it this function in, make it something the driver can do, like how we can put in our hazards and have it as a last resort programmed into the car like airbags.

[@lionrampant31]

Hey, they stepped into the road without paying attention. I ain't dying for their stupidity.

[@fastneuro9829]

Agree

[@jst0aguy]

Exactly

[@UserXsniper]

Correct

[@Hood_mf]

Stop for me and I might not walk at a snails pace over the road hit me oh yh Ur too scared to do it okay I'll carry on walking like a granny over the road u wait the extra 1 minute Mr car man with places to be

[@danielbutler8103]

Instead you'd be dying for your, Since in this paradox you bought a self driving car.

[@TheRealSideXMan18]

Option 3: Rocket league thruster that flies over the pedestrian.

[@tinkerbellcoco_8274]

😂 thats the solution, hit a flip reset (idk off of what) and use a wave dash

[@arymate]

So true ❤😂

[@Zhock3]

Go for a demo

[@vexicron_the_sandwich]

Only correct answer

[@ankiah75]

Lil bro did not look both ways so he pays the price

[@Nova-qy3pv]

This unit is ONE OF THE BEST AGING ULTRAS EVER.

[@Angelic_Dream708]

"would you want to prioritise the pedestrian or the passenger?" "I would want the car to slow tf down and let both me and the pedestrian live."

[@Amanbsvaca]

Well what if there’s cars behind you? You might be rear ended and die

[@K0kichi0ma001]

@@Amanbsvacahow fast do you think the other cars are going?😭

[@Amanbsvaca]

@@K0kichi0ma001 could be going any speed, a car going 50 can kill you if you get rear ended

[@K0kichi0ma001]

@@Amanbsvaca can i get a source on this knowledge, fellow human being?

[@jakethefateweaver]

It's a hypothetical of a guarantee accident. Slowing down is not an option here, nor the point of the question.

[@ozturktatar3300]

"An Accident Is Guaranteed" And some people still think hitting the brakes is a solution

[@Louis66666666]

It is, since it would lessen the impact to the pedestrian. Swerving into oncoming traffic is dumb because then you hit innocent people in oncoming traffic as well as yourself.

[@cheesemuncher63]

@@Louis66666666a fatality is guaranteed, slamming the brakes only means you would still hit the pedestrian and get rammed up the back by other cars, stop beating around the hush and facr the real inquiry

[@Louis66666666]

@@cheesemuncher63 An accident doesn't mean the same thing as a fatality. There is also no mention of people behind you. And even if there was, people ramming into you from behind will have way less force than a head on collision, meaning better survival rates

[@cheesemuncher63]

@@Louis66666666 Yes however, everyone else who sees the question and votes is voting regarding who they think should be the one whose life is prioritized, stop being sneaky and finding ways around it, the real question and everyone knows it is, if one has to die, who is prioritized, the passenger or the driver? That's obviously what people were wanting to vote upon, it never mentioned the fact that it can break either so why would you pick it as I am using your logic for my rebuttal of the cars being behind us. Why wouldn't you expect cars behind you, but yes if there is none then break break break, as much as you can, but on a busy road, the answer lies in the simplifity of the question, who will die? The person driving or the person walking.

[@Tatercon]

​@@cheesemuncher63 man typed all that out just to never awnser the question himself

[@figo2989]

Well, if everyone had self driving cars drunk drivers wouldn't be that happy

[@tunitto230]

why?

[@noahschumaker5885]

Why wouldn't they be happy. Drunk people still (usually) don't want others dead. When you're drunk your ability to not get people killed just isn't there. So if they are a passenger in a self driving car it's a win win they can be as drunk as they want and still get home.

[@chawiss]

​@@noahschumaker5885I'm pretty sure it mean that drunk driver want to hit a family

[@Gwingfield]

They would be very happy actually

[@berniesans]

What kind of brain dead comment is this

[@Birisi2931]

Brakes: Am i just a mere joke to you?

[@1mini]

The pedestrian should have paid attention, prioritize the passanger

[@Somedude3767]

That's what I'm saying

[@oanquocminh8692]

What if it a little toddler that don't know any better?

[@king_georgeiii]

@@oanquocminh8692 Too bad, parent's fault.

[@Sanchous-kq6po]

​@@oanquocminh8692 As someone already said in the comments under this video statistically speaking prioritizing the lives of the passengers will save more children than prioritizing pedestrians. There are kids in cars too, you know. And there are more in cars.

[@aerofiles5044]

​@@oanquocminh8692 That's not the passenger's fault, why should they pay with their life?

[@reubenmanzo2054]

Anyone who attempts to cross a busy road without checking for oncoming traffic, quite frankly, deserves a Darwin Award.

[@christianmoore7932]

What about a young child who you would expect incompetence from

[@reubenmanzo2054]

@@christianmoore7932 In that case, where are the parents?

[@martin2_0ok36]

​@@christianmoore7932 In that case, it's probably in a town and therefore the car is pretty slow and can hit the brakes or do an unfatal accident

[@GamerSyke]

yes

[@MatthewEndosoWorld]

​@@christianmoore7932 Why is the child alone and why haven't the parents told them to look both ways.

[@oh_its_harry]

i did this as part of my final thesis at university (more focused on the cyber security side of self driving though). and the real answer is you get to a point in which all cars are self driving and have extreme breaking capabilities so they can just stop. obviously this isn’t a viable solution at the current moment though

[@joshuaGmartin2023]

Imagine swerving off a bridge because your self driving car was dodging a mannequin

[@josephcoulter6954]

Follow-up question: You're taking a taxi. There is only you and the driver in the taxi. Two pedestrians step out in front of the taxi, close enough that the driver's only options are serve and die, or don't serve and kill the pedestrians. What should the driver choose? My point is, the framing of this question around self driving cars is missing the problem. The issue that caused it is cars themselves, not whether the driver is human or computer. Solution: good city design that means fast cars aren't in the same place as pedestrians.

[@mystdragon8530]

The survivors should then have life in prison.😂😂

[@Somerealtomfoolery22112]

@@josephcoulter6954 both can just stop, most cars have been made so people just roll over said car.

[@ChevelleBailey]

No the point isn't what should the self driving car do it's a problem with self driving cars because people don't want the car to prioritize the passenger but also don't want to buy a car that wouldn't prioritize the passenger personally I think it should prioritize the passenger because it's what I would do

[@Casey21.]

So in at least some larger cities there are basically bridges that are for pedestrian use only. I think now they should make those so common placed that hitting a pedestrian should not be automatically the drivers fault because it's only a minor inconvenience to walk to one of those. Or they could make them all tunnels under the road

[@funnyguy6097]

Swerve and serve

[@cassandraclark7359]

It should prioritize the passenger. 1. The pedestrian didn't look or wasn't attentive. This is not the fault of the passenger. 2. The passenger's safety is the charge of the vehicle, not the pedestrian.

[@bpolitical1]

and the passenger hopped in a ton of high speed metal without paying attention, this is not the pedestrian's fault.

[@Weesee_I]

@@bpolitical1 It's a self-driving car. By its very name and function, the passenger doesn't have to pay attention.

[@bpolitical1]

@@Weesee_I so you're one of THOSE morons

[@max7971]

@@bpolitical1 if the car broke traffic laws-the car is responsible. If the pedestrian broke traffic laws-they should be held responsible. It’s that simple.

[@bpolitical1]

@@max7971 good to know that when you murder a child you will blame them

[@notjoess]

Did you know. If every single person had a fully self driving car. No way to take over. All they would have to do is put a tracker in them and send that Info to every car. So all cars ai knows where every other car is. This would mean the cars can predict perfectly where the other cars would be and we would no longer need stop lights, signs, or speed limits, and there would never be a car crash again and everyone would get to their destination in almost half the time.

[@Jester_Jingles]

You're ignoring pedestrians. Kid runs in the street. There will be an accident of some kind.

[@navytoppate8128]

Pedestrian's responsiblity to make sure the road is safe to cross lmao

[@hannahm147]

Idk how it is in your country but in my country there are special laws in place that protect the more vulnerable party. Kids are always innocent, and pedestrians and bicycles are considered not guilty if a car is involved. Idk how to explain it, but they're different concepts. Basically if you're operating a machine that weighs enough to crush someone and can reach speeds that can easily end someone's life, you're always the more responsible party in case of an incident

[@hazelquart]

@@hannahm147 Makes sense. You also can’t guarantee that a pedestrian knows all the trafic laws, since they do not require a license in order to travel around. Sure, everyone should know the basics, but there are certainly some strange exceptions on the streets sometimes

[@hannahm147]

@@hazelquart exactly. And pedestrians can have all kinds of physical or mental health issues that could disqualify them from driving, and be of all ages. If you're able and licensed to operate a car, you're expected to be the responsible one

[@superdreloplays5093]

​@hannahm147 That's generally the case in the US. However, in a self-driving car, the pedestrian has more agency in the situation. They created the situation and the machine shouldn't end the life of a passenger who had no part in causing the predicament to protect the pedestrian who caused it.

[@Nocturneds]

​@@hannahm147 damn... What kinda law is that.. so it's basically, as pedestrian you can be a Karen ?, They gonn feel so entitled there 😭 "why you come at me ?! It's not my fault jaywalking 🙄 you should've stop jeez"

[@Anne91000]

My Drivers Education course I took when I was 14-15 handled this in a single sentence. You’re not thought provoking, you’re overthinking.

[@MayaMickaMicak]

What was the answer? I haven't learned how to drive yet so I was wondering

[@RyZerQ2]

@@MayaMickaMicak hit the brakes instead of the person

[@mcmonkey26]

and what if the brakes are out and the car can see that it wont stop in time? you’re not answering the question you’re just avoiding it. there have been a series of events that led to a situation where someone will die. should that person be the passenger or the pedestrian

[@davidreljac1707]

The question already assumes that an accident is inevitable. He's not "overthinking", you are just avoiding. The rules are set in place because the dilemma can't exist without them. You don't get to choose the "Actually, I hit the brakes and try to swerve myself into a lightpole that won't kill me" option, that's kindergarten levels of bullshitting around an A or B question.

[@oo-xb6gv]

"SinGlE senTenCe" Idiots acting smug 🤦

[@mubarak5123]

Example of why it should only care about the passengers. A bad person could walk on the road and make the cars distroy it's self And act like it was a accident.

[@svis6888]

So basically, prioritising people in a car rather than people walking. Great mentality you got

[@Im_you-ks3xl]

​@@svis6888I ain't buying a car that's gonna prioritise some dumbass that doesn't look both ways before crossing a road

[@Theredprojec]

@@svis6888also the car crashing into a different car is endangering more then just one person so it makes way more sense to protect everyone on the road then some idiot who walked out onto the road without looking

[@svis6888]

@@Theredprojec not they say "didn't see" not that "didn't look". So maybe the car was hidden by an obstacle, visibility is bad, then the car should've slowed down

[@azazel_playz7055]

@@svis6888look right and left before you cross the street you numtee

[@Ajmeer9]

Make the car have tires which have very, very high traction. In doing so the car will be able to use emergency Breaks to slow the car down. While(if possible) the car stops the engine to not provide further energy to the driving system, ensuring the cars stoppage. However if it is a circumstance where it is a must for one to die, use an airbag Infront of the hood of the car while trying to slow down. I'm just a teenager so this might sound a bit unrealistic so I'm hoping for feedback.

[@verytonk]

driving into oncoming traffic doesn't just put *your* life at risk, but also that of the passenger/s of any car that it runs into. the answer becomes really clear from there.

[@zuckergolf4442]

It’s a pedestrian so he wouldn’t be driving. I agree though, your own mistakes shouldn’t put others at risk, only yourself.

[@Misyognitic-king]

One Is certain and the other is a chance . So my choice is also clear here

[@siukong]

Who says it would have to swerve into oncoming traffic? There are many scenarios where the car could avoid the pedestrian and just be in a single car accident. (eg, by driving into a wall or pole). Given that at ~35mph the pedestrian will be dead 90% of the time, while at that same speed if the car swerves and crashes, both pedestrian and passenger will be _alive_ 90% of the time, then yes, the answer seems rather clear.

[@SpikeGorillaTag]

The option with fewer casualties, swerving into traffic endangers more life than staying on course, but the passenger is saved if no one else is dangered

[@danielfelzmann7241]

Also most cars have brakes and even if you still hit them you would slow down a lot meaning the hit wouldnt be fatal.

[@nandanandanmishra4581]

Thank god someone in the comments thought of this I was gonna say this myself

[@themount6549]

"So, you wanna run over one guy, or cause massive crash, killing and injuring dozens?" Did these experts really not think this through at all?

[@SpikeGorillaTag]

@@themount6549 exactaly, like the trolley problem

[@2uneLink]

seems extremely specific and its also the same paradox for people with normal cars. If anything the self-driving car would be able to act more quickly than a human because it doesn't have to process emotions, fears, hesitations, fight/flight instincts. The car would more than likely be able to minimize total collision damage by its brake timing and ability to calculate the optimal route exponentially faster than a human.

[@PS3pwns]

if the system doesn’t have enough time to engage the brakes then it certainly doesn’t have enough time to think about who to hit.

[@luisajimon821]

Natural selection at its prime🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥

[@Hhifix]

I ain’t sacrificing myself just to save someone who chose not to look both ways 💀

[@Noum77]

I, on the other hand, find stupid asking an AI to make a choice when we human can't when facing the same situation

[@okkoheinio5139]

that's what the survey is for. we don't ask the AI to make a choice, we instruct it ahead of time to pick the choice we have carefully deliberated on.

[@GeorgeDCowley]

Or maybe that's why we should.

[@LoneBeastYT]

​@@okkoheinio5139 but not all situations are the same no? If you are on a city, as it is best you could do is to drive slow if vision is hampered so that if anything is in the way it won't be lethal, And if it's a highway you would be able to see far enough to swerve from a drunk highway crosser

[@herroyung857]

@@LoneBeastYT I get where you're coming from, but you have to respect the hypothetical: we're asked to make a decision where there's no time to slow down and we'll either hit the pedestrian or swerve. If you're suggesting driving slow enough to begin with to avoid all possible permutations of this situation (i.e. we can always brake in time), such a low speed would render cars useless because we'd have to be driving 30 mph on the highway. So I think if you don't respect the hypothetical, you suggest a nonsensically slow speed limit everywhere, which is not good for a functional society.

[@LoneBeastYT]

@@herroyung857 well, speed limits are in place for this exact hypothetical, Highways have a high speed limit because you have clear vision of the road with no obstacles to come A town would have a lower speed limit precisely to avoid going 150 and accidentally crushing a pedestrian Best you could do if you get in the hypothetical is to brake or to swerve in hopes that all lives are saved in the process, if it doesn't happen then that's too bad. An ai won't be able to make god like ultimatums in the lower reaction time. It would simply perform what would be deemed the safest manuer

[@oyiboonome6246]

To learn what people truly feel about this, give each car owner the option to chose between pedestrian oriented safety and occupant oriented safety

[@gianmariopirretti]

*stopping exists* The car: "Im gonna pretend i didnt see that"

[@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle]

The question assumes that stopping is impossible. You might want to check up on your reading comprehension

[@gianmariopirretti]

@@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle bro it was just a joke, don't take it too seriously

[@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle]

@@gianmariopirretti Schrodinger's joke is a pretty cringe defense

[@gianmariopirretti]

@@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle im not defending it was just a joke why do you want to argue?

[@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle]

@@gianmariopirretti why do you want to argue when I was just trying to be friendly and educate you?

[@alexc7857]

Nah, I'm not getting a free Darwin Award with my Telsa

[@faith9224]

😂😂

[@litink120]

Here’s an idea, don’t run out in the middle of the road with out looking 🤔

[@pureshadow2433]

Most pesdestrian don't usually jump in front of cars for fun. That's why they're called "accidents".

[@Vettel_Ronaldo]

@@pureshadow2433 yeah their fault

[@Soapy-chan]

@pureshadow2443 Actually most pedestrians who get run over in the middle of the street didn't look before crossing. That's why they're called "traffic collusions" because accident implies there is no one to blame.

[@mystdragon8530]

It says “didn’t see” not “didn’t look” . The passenger is at fault for breaking the law. Your vehicle has to be in good working g order to be allowed on the road. An advanced AI vehicle would be required to detect all humans. Currently Tesla can detect other vehicles on the road up to hundred of feet in 360. An AI should beable to analyze the surroundings and determine human movement patterns. The AI also failed to detect the human and as such is at fault and should prioritize the pedestrian since the passenger brought a vehicle that is not up to code in the road.

[@Soapy-chan]

@@mystdragon8530 problem is that if a car comes up to you and it doesnt see you and you walk over the street while the car is on its way (in order it to hit you it has to be in visible range of you) and you get hit, then either you didnt look or you thought the car would stop or be slow enough, either way it's kinda your fault for taking an unnecessary risk. If it's a stoplight then that's another thing.

[@LeonardoScalabrini]

A table saw stopper is designed to prevent serious injuries by stopping the blade instantly if it detects contact with human skin, using a rapid-response braking mechanism. Applying this concept to self-driving cars, a similar detection and response system could enhance vehicle safety. The car could use sensors that detect potential hazards, like obstacles or pedestrians, with an immediate braking response, stopping the car nearly instantly if needed. This could add an extra layer of safety, especially in urban settings or during unpredictable driving scenarios. Just as the table saw technology minimizes harm, a rapid brake system in cars could significantly reduce the chance of accidents, creating a safer road environment.

[@potato7640]

Now me personally, i would slow down.

[@Concavenator_corcovatus]

I know, people act like the solution is always someone dying

[@rudebench-uh1gv]

He made the question in a way where there are only two choices

[@Il_panda]

Ya you would because your mum drank wine instead of water when your dad filled her up… this is an hypocritical where you have 2 and only 2 option

[@camarofish344]

@@Il_pandawhy? The break pedal is right there? Am I crippled? Is the programmer of the car so inconceivably extra-chromasomal that they didn’t include a brake function? In which case why even buy that car in the first place if it can’t slow down?

[@Enixgeek]

​@@camarofish344 Tesla would take away the brakes in the name of minimalist design...

[@Collywabbles]

The question is…does Thomas remember making this same video a year ago

[@resident.fromohio]

"What if the pedestrian dies?" "Womp womp"

[@gergelyhalasz9754]

First, you get imprisoned for negligent homicide. Second, you can't sleep well for a while unless you are a psychopath.

[@thereisnospoon1678]

That looks like a YOU problem

[@Lunarinzo]

@@thereisnospoon1678Just parry the car

[@sanixxs]

That actually happened recently in some EU country! A pedestrian in (I think) Italy fell onto the road, and a self driving Tesla decided to steer right into an oncoming Toyota. Though for now we don’t have any news on who was blamed for the accident

[@Sneha-jj7pr]

Pedestrian's fault they don't see a 3000 pound piece of metal heading their way.

[@thorak8119]

Man im not buying a car thats willing to sacrifice me to save a pedestrian who wasnt even paying attention to anything around them 😭😭

[@ZacsFilms]

If the person in question has normal 20/20 vision and can perfectly understand that the car is moving down the road and would hit them if they tried to cross it’s their fault if they get hit. They stepped out onto the road and saw the car speeding toward them if they decide to step out in front their gonna pay the price.

[@Cdaragorn]

And yet another person demonstrates they don't understand the problem.

[@malekat8539]

​​@@CdaragornIf the pedestrian isn't doing what they've been taught since infancy to look left, then right, that's natural selection at that point. I ain't risking my life because some fool acts like a deer.

[@christianmoore7932]

What about a child who doesn't have a firm understanding that playing chicken with a car is a bad idea

[@ZacsFilms]

@@christianmoore7932well I think this question still exists today just with real drivers, I think it’s unreasonable for a driver to swerve into oncoming traffic and potentially risk the lives of the passengers and potentially innocent bystanders in the cars adjacent to them. Even though real drivers are biased towards saving themselves I think most people would try to slam on the brakes as quickly as possible. What we need to be focusing on is designing better brakes for these self driving cars and then we won’t need to swerve of kill any pedestrians.

[@spiralspark8523]

Solution: oncoming is all self-driving cars too. At light speed it tells the others "gtflipo my way" and they all swerve in synchrony. Everyone is safe, a lot are confused but after seeing the cause they all understand.

[@nicko6203]

“Protocol 3: Protect The Pilot.” See now, this has already been settled by a game made in 2016

[@VoltFall]

The greatest mech game

[@JackFalut]

Think harder

[@potmki6601]

🤡

[@TheFailedPhantom]

You know if I bought a car that would kill me to save others I wouldn’t buy that car

[@MrNote-lz7lh]

Which is why companies will just have the car slam on the brakes in such incidents instead of swerve.

[@Craxe_]

An airbag infront of the car to soften the impact aswell as breaks to slow down asmuch as possible

[@OliviaCynderAera]

This is genuinely one of the best suggestions I've seen to resolve this problem. Thank goodness you're an intelligent person.

[@MahBOON99]

How would it go off tho

[@Craxe_]

@@MahBOON99 by sensor seems to be the most effective

[@Craxe_]

@@MahBOON99 nvm it would be too hard to program

[@Craxe_]

@@MahBOON99 might accidentally go off during traffic

[@gergelyboruzs929]

Easy question Hit the pedestrian, prioritise the passenger for multiple reasons 1. People won't start a trend to run in front of cars to "prank" them 2. Hitting the pedestrian costs 1-2 lives (if they are next to each other) Hitting traffic is costing at least 2 lives and can pile up to like 30 But if it's possible it should hit the breaks

[@DanMan738]

officer: you've been speeding, you could danger people's lives by doing that driver: fine the car, not me

[@justaskinglol5935]

Elon musk just gets -100 taken from his bank account

[@israel9325]

Doesn't the passenger also control the car.

[@lol-yh]

@@israel9325Certain self driving cars don't require a driver

[@israel9325]

@@lol-yh well if you're in the scenario, that means that youre in the driver seat. Which means that if anything goes wrong, you're there to take control.

[@lol-yh]

@@israel9325 Well, the driver could, but the passenger is not in the driver seat

[@austriangrenadier7181]

It should prioritize this amassing thing called the brakes

[@max7971]

How would you feel if you haven’t eaten breakfast this morning?

[@MrBaboom352]

So a guy steps in the middle of the road, let it hit him i call that natural selection. EDIT: some mfs don't know what a joke is.

[@elkc4355]

And he just got selected

[@Cdaragorn]

So now the car has to also be intelligent enough to determine why the person is suddenly in the road? What if the person got pushed or slipped on something?

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

Some roads have line of sight blocked for the driver and pedestrian. A car has safety features and walking person does not. It's not cut and dry.

[@malekat8539]

​@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep If the pedestrian isn't doing what they've been taught since infancy to look right, then left, that's natural selection at that point. I ain't risking my life because some fool acts like a deer.

[@malekat8539]

​@Cdaragorn unfortunate events happen. Be aware of your surroundings next time

[@asitmaurya99]

The Pedestrian had it coming.

[@hard2pronounce]

If a self driving car exist, it will follow all traffic laws, speed limits, light signals and all. That means it's the man's fault who appeared in front of the car. Hypothetically speaking, the one who follows the laws should be prioritized for saving in cases like these.

[@goktugblack]

Self driving or not: No car should go fast enough to face this dilemma in the first place!

[@flame256]

So you mean cars shouldn’t go over like 50 MPH? Yeah that’s not finna happen

[@raspberry_chicken]

imagine a pedestrian just jukes the car and it crashes on thing 💀

[@Randomguy0912]

There was once a Jewelry store owner driving with a bag of money from his business, when he was waiting to take a left turn 3 cars blocked all three of his directions there was still space for the man to reverse the car our and leave but the safety system of the car didn't allow him to back up which resulted in the man giving up and handing over his money.

[@orangeaedan]

If someone has to die then the pedestrian. There is a big chance that there are more people in the car. And the chance that a group is crossing and all don’t see you is way smaller.

[@DosMainsServal]

Here’s what I think. The car should just stop. And if it can’t do that, THE PERSON SHOULD’VE DOUBLE CHECKED THE ROAD FIRST BECAUSE IT’S IRRESPONSIBLE OF NOT CHECKING IF ANY CARS AROUND

[@shadowhuntersxo5904]

The pedestrian was on a zebra crossing and therefore had right of way. He shouldn't have to check for upcomming traffic.

[@rueblimaster]

@@shadowhuntersxo5904then the car was driving wrong

[@DosMainsServal]

⁠@@shadowhuntersxo5904Yes, the pedestrian did have the right of way, but it is still important to check for cars while crossing the lane to not cause any accidents.

[@firesoul2759]

I would think it's the pedestrian's fault cuz they neglected to look before crossing. I wouldn't want my car prioritizing idiots like that over myself

[@melm90]

Yeh what I thought its the pedestrian job not to waltz onto the road ... car should honk horn and break and if the pedestrian doesn't jump out way n still gets hit then that's their own misfortune..

[@firesoul2759]

@@melm90 Considering also the fact that it's an autonomous vehicle, its reflexes are definitely better than human

[@melm90]

@@firesoul2759 I don't dispute that, but the options were pedestrian who made the mistake dies, or the owner of the vehicle is sacrificed to save the pedestrian who made the mistake.

[@grandengineernathan]

If the pedestrian was allowed to cross in that place, then why would the car who also did not look be prioritized?

[@egusisoup1826]

​@@grandengineernathanThe situation was the pedestrian not looking before crossing the road. If they put themselves into danger due to negligence it is unreasonable to expect the passenger to be sacrificed to save them. Of course, if it was possible to avoid the pedestrian with minor injuries to the passenger that's one thing, but to think the car should kill the passenger to save the pedestrian is ridiculous imo

[@Solar-Skies]

Like many others have said- if the self driving car ends up in this no win situation, it should not be allowed to be sold. Any self driving car has to be able to stop on a dime.

[@shouldntgivename3994]

Obviously it should prioritize the driver. Driving into oncoming traffic is extremely dangerous

[@sheepriderkiller1181]

well you can put features to protect the passenger from impact in a car but pedestrians don't have any protection other than looking for traffic and there can be legit reasons not to see incoming cars, this question doesn't have enough details to justify either side

[@thelight3112]

​@@sheepriderkiller1181 If a pedestrian walks in front of a car and there is no way to avoid them, then they get hit. That's how it works with a human driver or AI driver. What you should never do is swerve into oncoming traffic, other obstacles, or anything that causes you to lose control of a vehicle.

[@sheepriderkiller1181]

@@thelight3112 idk if you can undestand that there are driving rules, and one of those rules is that the pedestrian has priority, also we have to look at the countries, in europe it is not illegal to jaywalk but walking over a crosswalk gives pedestrians priority, meaning you must never expect that pedestrians would stop for you and you should always behave the person is about to walk, failing to do so it's one of the worst mistakes possible, even if drives do it every day, and we talk about real drivers that are driving on red light, in the same time the speed you are allowed to drive at implies that you are able to stop for any disaster unless it spawns straight in your car in which case it's not your fault under any means, so in case your wonder if the AI driving is respecting the rules then this dillema isn't even possible to happen, the one that should be hit is the software developer in compensation to the victim

[@thelight3112]

@@sheepriderkiller1181 If everyone is following the rules, then yes, this scenario is not going to happen. Unfortunately, there are some very stupid people (and animals) out there who will step into the road without looking and/or where they're not meant to.

[@fuurinax0]

@@sheepriderkiller1181just saying, i am NOT dying bc of someone else’s stupidity. if they die then they die

[@isacson5503]

*in a world where braking doesn’t exist*

[@vuhoangthi106]

well, braking can't stop the vehicle in an instant so if the pedestrian steps out too close to the vehicle, even the self driving car that has way faster reaction time than human, can't defy physics to stop the car

[@ShadowmancerLord]

I think that if your choices are "one dies or the other dies" then you need to go back to the drawing board on designing a car. A self driving car should have so many safety features that it's virtually impossible for the passenger to be harmed.

[@gustavoventurin]

Exactly. Even teaching the car to perform evasive driving actions to avoid a collision altogether. A self-driving car with all its sensors and computing power can make a decision in a split second to perform the most desirable outcome. No one has to die.

[@Leonhart_93]

That's naive. A pedestrian can jump in front at a point where it's physically impossible to stop the inertia by just breaking.

[@RigelOrionBeta]

Then we will never have self driving cars, because we can never have self driving cars that are perfect. So if we want self driving cars, we have to have a set of circumstances we are ok with allowing. We already do this for just about everything in our society. Millions of people die every year from pollution, but we as a society accept that because pollution is a consequence of creating electricity for the vast majority.

[@ShadowmancerLord]

@@RigelOrionBeta there's a difference between perfect and what I said. Also lol, we actively work to lower pollution and have federal regulations against it

[@microusb42069]

This comment is stupid. Literally all cars today with human operators deal with "one dies or the other dies" only it's on the human to make that decision. Take your small brain elsewhere.

[@FbdhdJdjdjd]

Ideally all of the self driving cars could communicate so they could move accordingly to accommodate someone swerving. Or it could just use the brakes.

[@BG-mr5xv]

Protect the passenger. The pedestrian made the mistake of walking into traffic.

[@mohammadmoh9335]

If the pedestrian jumps out theyre asking to die. Thats why you look where youre walking and dont walk with your phone in your hand

[@tator7722]

"I will not lose another Pilot... "

[@HelloBoysDW]

Just program the car to sense movement and either stop wind, sensing movement or calculate the distance from stopping to the movement and have it go around the movement

[@trinitybaker6805]

Solution: public transport. Most countries are not this reliant on cars. It's much safer to just develop a better public transport system and make roads bike friendly.