The social dilemma of self-driving cars

[@elfboi523]

The entire question is complete bullshit. Just make the robot car obey the same rules that apply to human drivers - speed limits etc. And in an emergency, just do whatever the ideal human driver would do - i.e., try to brake first.

[@user-wc1hs9lz6i]

If it was that simple - we would have no accidents by now. The problem is that there's always people who won't believe anything bad would happen to them unless they learn the hard way.

[@MrFerrariF360]

What would you do? You have a choice to smash your car into oncoming traffic (or a wall), or try to stop (But remember, computers will know with a rather high degree of accuracy if it's possible to even stop)? What influenced your decision? What is the right answer? Scenario is simple, there WILL be a crash that WILL be deadly (to either the occupants, or pedestrians/other cars), what should the computer prefer as a course of action?

[@user-wc1hs9lz6i]

Igor Gomes There's 7.5 billion people on the planet. Expecting every single one to be "educated and respect the law" is simply absurd, and thinking that education will make a person careful and obedient is naive. Just look at the people who drive Teslas hands-off even though there's many visual and audio warnings everywhere telling them NOT to do it. Or all the people texting and driving, which is already universally known as a dangerous thing.

[@gideonroos1188]

+Patrick Potter That answer is simple. The vehicle's first priority should be the occupants who have placed their trust, and lives, in it's hands, and above all else, have actually paid for it.

[@Wearyman]

I choose the Captain Kirk choice: I go around the scenario by outlawing self-driving cars. Now the moral dilemma and the entire scenario are invalidated, and nobody has to die to a robot's decision. If you want safer roads and less pollution, require recurrent driver's tests every 5 years, with loss of license if you fail. People will be better drivers if they must. Driverless cars are a solution in search of a problem.

[@hardware64]

That's amazing, it almost looks like a self driving car wouldn't be much more efficient than a human at preserving both

[@robin6469]

You know how to save both the driver and pedestrians? BRAKES!

[@fuzzzvibe]

"Less traffic", "fewer accidents" That is very unrealistic.

[@demonorse]

You can have my steering wheel when you pry it from my cold dead hands

[@toast1012]

lol no one will?

[@sakadabara]

+Alex Azazel , your avatar is border line satanic! Could you please repent and start gargling with holy water tree times a day , seven days a week please !

[@ViralBlank]

Preach, and then you have the issue with these "smart" cars getting hacked also. Give me the dumb 4-wheeler any day

[@ViralBlank]

oh bollocks

[@cybernakulum]

You can't stop the progress.

[@FarryEntertainment]

What a time to be a live.

[@DangerAngelous]

Here's an idea: Why don't we stop making people incapable of doing things for themselves and instead of resort to electronics get people to sort themselves out?

[@vtrex7791]

because so many people are incapable of doing those things for themselves even though they learned how to do those things.

[@ChernAndFriends]

self-driving cars keep a safe distance. So a situation like this happening would probably only occur when a bunch of pedestrians decide to jump onto the road when they shouldn't be. And in that case, the AI should do what humans would do, avoid the accident without breaking any road safety rules by swerving, just brake if it can be done safely.

[@zbeast]

I would like a car that drives the way I drive... save me, save my passengers, kill the car, kill anything else. This greater good bs is just bs...

[@ViralBlank]

I say those cars should ram the pedestrians, they are at fault for not paying attention to their surroundings.

[@samhoey8247]

other cars or faults in the car it is not always pedestrians fault

[@JoeJoeTater]

KEEP. SUMMER. SAFE.

[@MrFerrariF360]

Why not have the owner of the vehicle be able to choose a setting. Thus transferring that liability from the AI, to the owner of the vehicle. And as with the rest of our society, we have insurance and procedures to cover things like: traffic accidents where someone is hurt/killed.

[@KerrieFoleyBates]

I imagine the person who ops for the "save self / sacrifice pedestrian" option who then crashes into and kills their own off spring and has to LIVE with that...

[@stb7208]

When would that situation ever occur? If they're safe enough, they would avoid any sort of problem

[@pac6010]

Yeah I definitely don't want a car that when faced with that situation chooses to kill me. Because you know its not gonna be able to factor in groups of people vs a single person obstruction and reason that out. Anyone in the roadway will automatically make the car swerve out of the way. Not to mention all the lawsuits this opens up on both sides regardless of what it does. Which is why I really don't want to give over that power to a computer, I can drive myself just fine thanks. At the very least if they want to use this tech it needs to have a manual override.

[@jonathanfauteux8273]

What if autonomous vehicle offers very cheap transportation in your city? For example a 2$ ride for what should have been a 15$ taxi ride? Would you still take a taxi or buy a car in case you are ever in that extremely rare case where the system chooses someone else's life over yours?

[@jonathanfauteux8273]

What if the autonomous vehicle would just eject you? :D

[@nixter1nixter1]

The algorithm for making such decisions will be based upon the least harm principle, the ai will choose a course of action that saves the most amount of lives possible in a given scenario. Of course there are many possibilities, an instant access system will allow a computer to review both humans recorded behavior patterns and history, including arrests and convictions to assist in making a "correct" choice based upon the perceived "worth" of a particular human. Given a 50- 50 choice a random number generator would be programed to pick a life to save.

[@sansactionl5723]

always guarantee security driver, thats all

[@gopalphamber]

The old trolly problem. Should have figured this would come up

[@mr.h4ck3rm4n4]

Holy shit. We're so deep into the future our old ethical dilemmas are being translated into new technology.

[@gopalphamber]

***** Just another example of why philosophy matters

[@colefuehrer8216]

What about two lanes, one for cars driven by humans and another for self driving cars

[@idriverandomwheeledobjects4535]

One problem with self driving cars if there is no manual override with pedals and a steering wheel... back country road at night a theif steps out on the road. Your vehicle's saftey sytem stops the car to not hit the pedestrian while another theif holds you up at gunpoint knowing the car wont move due to the saftey system. Your stuck with no way to flee like a sitting duck. With a normal car this obviously is avioded. Im not againt self driving cars maybe for taxi use.

[@sakadabara]

This is not social , but ETHICAL problem.

[@obonic]

An ethical problem that create a social dilemma.

[@gideonroos1188]

+obonic There's no dilemma. The vehicle's first priority should be the occupants who have placed their trust, and lives, in it, and above all, gave paid the designers and producers for the vehicle. Any company's first responsibility is to the people who pay it for its products and services.

[@toast1012]

also, eho lets their fucking kids play on a cliffside?

[@justacrlon3963]

your comment completely suits your picture

[@aripocki]

The truth is - self-driving cars can detect its environment with a radius of ~1000 feet. Driving no faster than the mandated upper speed limit of 85 mph (in Texas), it would take the car a maximum of 361 feet to come to a full stop, assuming good brakes. That means your obstacle (and pedestrian) must be moving towards the self-driving car at such a speed that the car has not yet reached a non-lethal speed. The typical brake decelerates the car at ~15 feet per second, so after 5 seconds, the car would already have reached 10 mph - completely non-lethal. Doing the math, the pedestrian/obstacle must cover a minimum of 640 feet in 5 seconds without stopping, which is 87 mph. Basically the car will never be forced to make a choice between innocent pedestrians and obstacles - because it will always take someone else doing reckless driving to force this situation to even happen.

[@zBones762]

Why on earth would they ever put some philosophical junk into a vehicles AI? It should and will treat all events the same, which is bring the vehicle to a stop, hopefully prior to running people over in the first place. What if, you're standing next to someone on the top of a hill over looking a railroad track that is being worked on by six workers. You notice a train coming at high speed with no one on board! Not even a Conductor! Your only option to save the six workers on the tracks is to push the unknown person standing next to you down the hill and onto the tracks to somehow prevent those six workers assured death. What do you do? Do you push the one to save six? Or do you let the six die?

[@brunon.8962]

Let's take an autonomous taxi, problem solved.

[@robertbidochon7949]

I'd buy a self-driving vehicle that does never sacrifice it's occupants.

[@murandi88]

Redundancy... redundancy... redundancy... that's the solution of the dilemma!

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

I think these cars will be shared, not owned.

[@chesseski7271]

Maybe we could make the car not drive so fast that it have to slam to a wall in order to stop in fron of a red light /crosswalk. Maybe, people will still have to look both ways before crossing.

[@ramabg2]

This kind of scenario is very unlikely to happen in real life, and if It do, new law for "prioritizing life" will be required for both drivers and autopilot. First of all, cars be programmed to obey road regulation like speed limit and traffic light, therefore by law, the cars are driving under legitimate condition. Secondly, cars only have legal maximum speed limit of 60 mph in most highway, therefore they only require 37-57 m to complete stop. No sane people will jump into the street while encountering cars with that kind of speed within short distance. If by "accident" people still try to cross the street, the only way to save them would be make illegal sudden lane change, which can risk other cars or turn into sidewalk,which is illegal, risking car passenger and innocent pedestrian. I do not think any professional drivers or self-driving cars can be given such discretion to break the law and risking innocent lifes for saving lifes.

[@kruth6663]

If the others appear on a road they shouldn't have been, they should just take resposibility of their own decision. What would a train do, jump off the rail? Just because a car has the choice to sacrifice itself doesn't mean it ought to.

[@guiprofessor]

It's no dilemma - the pedestrians are not to blame. If one chooses to have a self driving car, with all the risks that come with it, one is that the car must be programmed to save the life of the innocent pedestrian since it's not his fault the rich man has a self-driving car. But maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?

[@lazarusbonilla5677]

Why would you need to sacrifice anyone when the car can just brake??????????

[@princeofexcess]

if a person runs in front of a car its that persons fault. automation will already save lives so why make it harder to save lives because of stupid laws that prevent personal freedom

[@EnderKhaos]

Well, if the self driving car is following the rulles and laws it should be driving well (and slow) enough to not kill anyone.

[@Peteminator]

I should not be killed when others are in fault

[@DeusExAstra]

You could just make the AI preferences for things like who to prioritize to be user selectable. You also need laws that make sure whatever the AI decides wont lead to a law suit against the company that made the car/AI. There will always be scenarios like this where the AI has to chose who to prioritize and who might get hit. If the AI is working properly (i.e. it didnt decide to run over 10 people instead of 1 cat) and the AI algorithm was reasonable, it should be protected from prosecution.

[@maximusrusso8758]

Or maybe the car might be connected to a larger network that gathers all traffic and street light information so it isn't just riding through red all day...

[@extropian314]

Eventually, way down the road, unassisted humans will not be legally able to drive on busy public roads. There will be such a vast safety difference observed, as traffic is automated, that the choice will be a no-brainer for society.

[@420bars]

self-driving cars are just to serve their investors buy pulling money away from low and mid class people. not to mention the amount of data they will collect with their cameras and sensors that will feed a main database server. think about it, if safety was a concern cars would have only the necessary Technologies to avoid a collision...

[@420bars]

**by

[@420bars]

+toast1012 you obviously don't understand. Instead of insulting people stay in school and learn a few things.

[@420bars]

+toast1012 you still don't understand the point I'm trying to get across. What are you like 15.. I can't help to question if you have the balls to insult me face to face. Self-driving Technologies are for the interest of profit not your safety. Obviously you don't have enough brain cells to maintain a conversation without insulting people. I would have loved to have a debate, but you know what they say you can't argue with stupid.

[@gtox11]

Whoa whoa wait.. A company invented technology and intend to make money off of it?! WUTTTTTT!! Outrage.

[@getaasciesh1]

Low and middle income people can choose not to give their money away. They can choose not to drive self-driving cars. You cannot blame investors and inventors for taking your money away when the decision of giving away money is made by you.

[@obonic]

Instead of killing the driver maybe hitting the break sooner, Driving slower? or driving into the next available empty space? It's just hard to see a scenario where the self driving car has to make that choice if it's trying to play safe already.

[@Kielly]

Break... The break.. Or can a robot not do that? Seriously, I drive for the fun of it anyways, you'll never take the wheel from my hands. You're lucky if you'll get me to buy a hybrid let alone a car that makes decisions for you.

[@DredPirateDanku]

how about we look both ways and try hard not to get hit by a car?

[@davidrjohns]

Awesome, so if somebody jumps out in front of my car on purpose it'll do its best to take me out? When would this scenario ever play out where it wasn't the pedestrians fault? It's a stupid question, your car should look out for you. At all costs.

[@leopoldofernandes2602]

Hi Dominator! After reading your comment I realized that we still having human beings left... Not just humanoids. Be carefull you tech people. Don't forget this! Technology is suposed to be useful, and therefore a complement for our needs.

[@richieasian]

Why would an autonomous car be going fast enough to not be able to stop in a narrow street full of jaywalkers? I wouldn't want my autonomous car going above 20 mph in a city like NYC where it's normal to jaywalk. Autonomous cars should be smart enough to know NOT to go like 60 mph in a busy city.

[@vauun7349]

I don't think I would spend my valuable money to just die randomly one day by my car

[@D0MiN0HD]

Yeah I'd rather not buy a car that will try to kill me because somebody decided to jaywalk in the middle of traffic

[@Jason-ns4qy]

The whole self sacrifice argument is irrational in this scenario. If you are in a car, then you have to on some level accept the consequences that come with being in that car. One of those consequences being that yes, you might be killed in an accident if something goes wrong. Just because you might die from your car hitting a wall does NOT make it okay to hit someone with a 2 ton death trap. If you hit a wall, a parked car, or a tree while in a car there is a MUCH better chance that you'll live then the chance of the person living if you hit them with that car. Even IF both hitting the wall or hitting the person both results in either the person or the driver being killed, I would not choose to buy a car that prioritized my life over someone else. Instead I would look for a better solution to the problem. That being, DRIVING A FUCKING CAR THAT I COULD CONTROL and that I wouldn't have to worry about some malfunction. This is really quite simple for a moral problem, people are just too selfish to see the solution. Also this is coming from someone who hit a parked tractor trailer (at a decent speed) and actually lived to see the next day (obviously) and even was lucky enough to be left without a scratch because of the good airbags. The car was ruined, but hell I'm glad I didn't hit someone instead. They would of not been so lucky.

Yogurt: _"I would not choose to buy a car that prioritized my life over someone else . . . people are just too selfish to see the solution."_ - You are a moron, but I respect your freedom to commute in your own self-driving coffin with wheels. Don't count me in, though. I'd rather hack every of those self-driving cars. Yogurt: _"this is coming from someone who hit a parked tractor trailer . . . and actually lived to see the next day . . . I'm glad I didn't hit someone instead."_ - Pity, you would have been the merriest corpse in the graveyard.

[@Jason-ns4qy]

Self-driving coffin huh? Sounds pretty sweet actually. Is the car shaped like a coffin too? Does it stop in the middle of train tracks or drive directly off a cliff? Sounds like a new method of torture we could use. In all fairness self-driving cars are very safe. They drive at the speed limit. They let other cars pass them. The only major danger that they face is other cars that are not self-driving. Also the SDCs do not look like they would fair well in a head on collision. Most cars that we drive now (Except mainly smart cars) are build to take a crash without the person being killed. As long as you are not driving at high speeds or your car doesn't flip over you should be fine. Granted there are some exceptions like hitting trees, but most fixed object crashes are not fatal. They account for around 20% of fatal crashes and it's been that way in the US since the late 70s. 50% of those fixed object deaths were trees. Most modern cars would be fine hitting a parked vehicle provided the driving cars speed wasn't ridiculously fast. I don't support self-sacrificing cars. I also wouldn't want to be in a car that would choose to hit a person on the sidewalk as the first option. If the danger I'm facing isn't even nearly fatal than I don't need to worry about hitting a parked car at 15 mph. I have seat belts and airbags. That guy walking is fuck if I hit them (maybe injured maybe dead). If it's on a highway and some suicidal moron is standing in the middle of it then hitting that person is the safe option considering the alternative is a 15 car pile up. Also idiots hacking their SDCs is cause for concern. Not only could safety setting be altered, but you could change maximum speed and a ton of other variables. It could be not stopping for pedestrians and other shit like that. _"Pity, you would have been the merriest corpse in the graveyard."_ No. I would of been dead. I think my consciousness would cease to exist. People are selfish cowards was my original point though. The cops shooting unarmed civilians because they MIGHT have a gun is evidence of this. Don't bother looking for alternatives or investigating. Just kill that person because he could have AK47 shoved up his ass.

[@coltstiles6864]

You're so full of shit. If you were on a cliffside and you had no where to go, would you steer off the side to save someone? Fuck that. FULL SPEED AHEAD!

[@Jason-ns4qy]

Colt Stiles In that situation you'd be right. I ain't driving off a cliff to save some douchebag. Of course why I'd be driving near a cliff in the first place seems odd, but w/e.

[@coltstiles6864]

I mean, whether it's a wall or a cliffside road to death, death is death. The car should just prioritize braking.

[@joubertp16]

I agree with Alex Azazel and elfboi523. No need to be so pessimistic.

[@Cameron-hu6hg]

How likely is it that a bunch of pedestrians would be on a highway? Rare, and even if it that does happen, other cars would have probably stopped so your car would too. Humans can't just teleport in front of a car. In the slightly more likely situation, someone running in front of a car, that's their own fault. The car shouldn't have to swerve and kill the owner, it should just brake and minimize casualty risk equally to the driver and the pedestrian, like humans already do. I'm sure a self driving car would be much better at 'thinking' so it wouldn't panic and would make a rational decision.

[@SeanRPS]

...this is stolen straight off reddit

[@Wearyman]

Here's a better solution: don't allow self-driving cars. Just BAN the damn things, and the moral dilemma goes away. See how easy that was? Now nobody has to ever die to robot.

[@mr.h4ck3rm4n4]

Lol. Enjoy having a higher chance of dying in a car accident due to human error. Why do you want to ban self driving cars? Think about how many lives and how much energy will be saved.

[@Gijian123]

If a mob of people are crossing the road and the car did not see that or could not brake in time, that car failed hard, especially driving at speed limit within 40 mph on most urban and suburban streets. If the pedestrians break the law (crossing illegal), brake and controlled maneuver effort should be made, but driver preservation outweigh it. If you are talking 60 to 70 mph, I say, run them over, they should not be on the highway/freeway at all.

[@Pray4Mojo1]

Self sacrifice. You guys wouldn't be saying other such bullshit if it was your child.

[@getaasciesh1]

The owner should be able to choose and she should be liable to the outcome of any incident.

[@thorlong]

Null argument, it is not an AI, it is programmed to follow certain rules and none of those rules exist to protect the passengers or pedestrians, they exist to protect the vehicle. This means that the 'self driving' vehicle will have much better reaction times than a human driver and be able to stop or avoid any obstacles far more safely than the human counterpart. Moral decision making abilities are interesting but pointless when talking about inanimate objects, like blaming the cell phone when the driver crashes because hes was texting, it comes down to ability; you can only place blame from the artificial limiting of ability.

[@alexvornoffice]

this is bullshit, self driving cars will drive so slow, it will just knock someone on the road not killing

[@HoosierNewman]

Stupid prospect. The self driving car, should first preserve the peds, then should be smart enough to evade, avoid impact to the brick wall. Also the video does not factor in Airbags, and curtains, and additional devices that will come before total adoption. Also in the scenario presented based upon city traffic, and approaching stop sign, why would the car be driving fast enough to ram a wall and kill the driver? At speeds of 25-35mph I think the passenger should survive, even without airbags. This video makes the supposition that the car is driving too fast to stop, or not stop. As well as not having any anti-collision, auto- braking features that are even found on new cars today. Scientific studies on incomplete suppositions is a waste of time, money and bandwidth. What kind of grades did that scientist get?

[@1945Ace1]

If your paying the lease or have bought the car entirely and are paying insurance for the car, I would say it would be best if it served your interest and not the dumbasses, who are jay walking.

[@ExodineMusic]

sorry but this is unreasonable. these cars are safer for everyone in all cases. the car will see the pedestrian faster and easier than a human would and no accident would occur.

[@MrFerrariF360]

It's not a question of if they're safer. What do you want the computer to do, when presented with a LOSE-LOSE scenario, where a likely deadly crash is unavoidable. Which deadly crash should it choose? How is this unreasonable? This scenario will happen (Maybe not this EXACT one, but one where the car is crashing, and it has milliseconds to decide who's getting the impact).

[@gtox11]

The point is that the automated vehicle will never be at fault because it will always abide by the traffic laws that are set. The idiots jumping into the street at the last moment are the problem, and the fact that they are jumping in front of an automated vehicle is irrelevant. Personally I say that the automated vehicle attempt to safely brake, and if that isn't enough.. well, the world is probably better without people that dumb. Or how about we go a step further and build a complementary implant for dumb people that tells them not to walk into traffic and get killed. On second thought, no; I prefer the Darwinism approach.

[@harrychan202]

just brake the car

[@user-lx1yj2yu4j]

geile scheiße zum spritzen

[@daianagabrielapensado9525]

n xxx

[@chasecrawford4173]

That, and they look stupid

[@K1borg6773]

aj ne jedite govna puno

[@snebold]

So sick of this stupid "thought experiment". More like a non-thinking experiment.