The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars • Hacker News Board

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#11

Post by Shivetya » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #3

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car more than those on the road around them. Is that immoral? Maybe, but if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth. Of course, this is rather less of an issue that it seems, since the article…

If we follow Asimov, your car will take the hit and likely that is how it should be. The car's only judgment call should be, can I avoid this threat without threatening another?

You run into a cascade problem if your car decides to weigh the fates of other cars by trying to run some value comparison. Who sets the values? Can they be spoofed, and so on.

So first rule is that it cannot harm another vehicle to save itself. You aren't really part of the equation here, you cannot be. By the act of using the autonomous automobile you and it become one for sake of the how the rules play out.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#12

Post by unclebucknasty » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #3

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car more than those on the road around them. Is that immoral? Maybe, but if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth. Of course, this is rather less of an issue that it seems, since the article…

>if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth

It seems that, as driverless cars become more common, you are more frequently on the other side of the equation.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#13

Post by jtlien1 » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:49 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #2

However it works out, on the whole, there will be fewer deaths and injuries with autonomous cars. So, we can try to weight the different scenarios to give one a handicap over another --but this pales in comparison to all the lives saved by having autonomous cars.

My take on driverless cars is that they should solve a few other problems first. Like our crazy insurance system. I should pay much less for driving on uncrowded rural highways than people who drive in congested cities. And pay by the number of miles driven. And fix the problem with drunken drivers and deer/car collisions. And taxes to pay for roads not on how many miles you drive on which roads using what kind of vehichle. Small cars are subsidizing semis and dump trucks.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#14

Post by venomsnake » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

  double getMaxSpeed(clear_road_ahead){
        return speedAtWhichStoppingDistanceIs      (clear_road_ahead/3);
  
  }

  enforceTopSpeed(getMaxSpeed(clear_road_ahead));

Engineering solved morality once again.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#15

Post by CM30 » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

On another note, it could also be interesting to think about what the legal situation could be with a situation like this. If a driverless car prioritises the owner/passengers, then I can see a few court cases where the families of people killed by one would want to sue the manufacturer over it. And if it works the other way around, it could be the families of the passengers suing the company instead.

At which point we then have to let the court system decide how a driverless car should act in the case of this problem. And then it gets even more complicated, since different countries and states (and even towns) might come to different conclusions here. Does your car now need to know how to act in every possible US state and country in the world in case it's taken there and gets into an accident?

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#16

Post by facetube » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

CM30 wrote: post #3

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car more than those on the road around them. Is that immoral? Maybe, but if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth. Of course, this is rather less of an issue that it seems, since the article…

I actually got a rather deep insight from the article, which was "How would an autonomous car get itself into such a situation?" Such a car would not drive so close to a truck that it could not simply stop should the truck lose its cargo. It would not approach a tunnel at a rate of speed where it could not brake to avoid an obstruction. People do that because they ignore risk in favor of some perceived time advantage…

Completely agree. The self-driving car doesn't need to pick who to kill, mostly because it started braking 1.5 seconds ago.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#18

Post by facetube » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #6

CM30 wrote: post #3

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car more than those on the road around them. Is that immoral? Maybe, but if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth. Of course, this is rather less of an issue that it seems, since the article…

I agree. If doing so makes people more willing to adopt driverless cars, it may save more lives. However, if the person would only be injured, it should prefer that to someone else's death (as the person himself would be legally obligated to do.)

Do we actually have a model that can predict death vs. serious injury vs. minor injury in advance?

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#19

Post by elcct » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

The Amorality of typewriters. Oh wait...

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#20

Post by mcbits » Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:57 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #3

I'm going to be extremely unpopular for saying this, but I still think the self driving car problem should be solved by having them value the people in the car more than those on the road around them. Is that immoral? Maybe, but if I'm buying a car, I like to think it's looking out for me first and someone else seven hundred and fifty sixth. Of course, this is rather less of an issue that it seems, since the article…

Putting the occupants' safety first is probably the best default to start with, as it's pretty close to what we have already, although given enough time, there will surely be cases where the car chooses to save the driver when the driver would have sacrificed themselves willingly or by some miscalculation.

But I think the ethical dilemma will end up solving itself over time, as well. When a car has to make an emergency decision, it will make a 5-10 millisecond call to its attorney, Dr. Watson, Esq., who will review all case history and settlements, run background checks on the potential victims, weigh all the factors against the current political climate, and direct the car to choose the accident with the lowest expected liability.