Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

nplusonemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#51

Post by bsder »

ilostmykeys wrote: post #4
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…

"Me first" is pretty dumb in the global sense. Cooperative (nit me first) games are the way to greater benefit for everyone.

> "Me first" is pretty dumb in the global sense. Cooperative (nit me first) games are the way to greater benefit for everyone.

Only for games with multiple iterations.

In addition, "Me first" strategies often create something fairly close to optimal for a lot of cases--we call them "greedy" algorithms for a reason.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#52

Post by kenshaw »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #32
ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Supposing autonomous cars actually drive extremely safely and this results in them going 20 km/h under the speed limit. Are drivers going to be happy about the length of their commute increasing while regular car drivers (due to human recklessness) wiz by in the left lane at 130 km/h? I think you'd see a lot of human drivers get frustrated and turn off the AI.

Actually, I'd predict the opposite -- that people will purposefully start to increase their commute times and tell the car to "take the scenic route." People are frustrated with commuting because they have to be mentally engaged doing it. When that's no longer a requirement, people will watch movies/tv, read books / news articles, do their makeup/prep their hair, give each other massages/have sex, play video games, etc. etc. instead of driving their cars. I wouldn't put it entirely out of the question (except for the issue of fuel costs) that people will start buying bigger cars (akin to RVs or campers) so that they can take all their crap with them. I can almost guarantee you that people will basically want to roll out of bed into their offices / place of work, assuming the driving can be done all automatically.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#53

Post by calsy »

I always think of these things as tech dreams vs reality. No matter the publicity, no matter the hype, the reality is you will need to change the perception of a global public that have been driving cars for a century. You need to convince the world that it is safe to ride in a car not controlled by a person. I cant see this happening for sometime, decades even.

Not only that but driverless cars will disrupt government revenue streams, the workforce, law enforcement etc. every industry will be affected and I don't think people are just going to welcome these changes with open arms.

Sure the tech news is gushing with praise, which fuels publicity for these big companies, but in the real world that media will turn on you in an instant when an incident occurs. There will be a large, active, hostile contingent of the public who depend on their jobs driving to feed their families and they wont just sit by and let their jobs become redundant. This isnt Uber, not by a long shot, this is massive global disruption.

Like any tech venture, it needs to scale successfully to gain world wide dominance. Prove that it works in a particular environment and expand. Sure companies will love the cost savings that come from driveless tech, but the general public, wow that will be a fight.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#54

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#55

Post by JulianMorrison »

calsy wrote: post #53

I always think of these things as tech dreams vs reality. No matter the publicity, no matter the hype, the reality is you will need to change the perception of a global public that have been driving cars for a century. You need to convince the world that it is safe to ride in a car not controlled by a person. I cant see this happening for sometime, decades even. Not only that but driverless cars will disrupt governme…

Society changes fast when a big shift like this comes along. People knew horses, they were used to them. Boom, gone, when the mass market motor car and motor tractor replaced them. Society adapted so hard that a horse went from a daily sight, to a symbol of the past.

People will complain. Laws will be passed in backward places. Truckers will protest. Boom, gone.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#56

Post by JulianMorrison »

CM30 wrote: post #10
ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, the chance of such a situation occurring is pretty much slim to none. A driverless car isn't going to be driving like a maniac at many times the speed limit and putting itself into dangerous situations at every opportunity. Then again, given some of the stuff there's a market for, I guess there is the worry that 'driverless car aimed at person who wants to be in James Bond/Bullitt/whatever' might turn out to be…

Knight Rider, surely.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#57

Post by Noos »

PantaloonFlames wrote: post #25

All this hang-wringing about the decision a driverless car will make when faced with the trolley problem is pointless. Driverless cars will result in a MASSIVE reduction in deaths of drivers and passengers, a MASSIVE reduction in harm to human pedestrians and non-drivers and to the environment. Driverless cars do not look at their cell phones. Driverless cars do not drive drunk. Driverless cars are not in a hurry, no…

Driverless cars will still err, though. They will err like software. The car won't be distracted, but if a software fault causes a google car to classify a certain make of car as invisible due to its lidar signature, or the glitch it causes in the algorithim, it will be far worse. Human error is significant, but software error probably can be more catastrophic because it can affect a huge subset of cars, much more than human error can.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#58

Post by zwily »

rimantas wrote: post #43
caseysoftware wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a positive feedback loop in there too... As cars go autonomous, they'll communicate faster, drive more predictably, and generally be safer. At some point - 1%, 5%, 20%? - the network as a whole will benefit with less accidents and less of the resulting delays which means human drivers will be less likely to be late which takes away anxiety and potential distractions, making it even safer. Therefore, I…

What prevents to deploy these systems (e.g. start braking if on collision course) whith human still under the wheel?

Nothing - there are already several cars that do it.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#59

Post by Eric_WVGG »

I loved that this article focused on the peculiar de facto morality that has evolved around car culture.

I quit driving about fifteen years ago, primarily get around on bicycle with the occasional train or Uber. You really need to get locked out of a car for a while to appreciate the weird sense of entitlement that drivers get.

When the streets are full of cars and traffic is slow, well that’s just a fact of life, you mutter and deal with it. But if a bicycle is a driver’s commute by a few seconds, that’s license to go completely bananas. Somehow just the fact that someone owns a car makes them feel like their time is worth more than that of others, that society owes them a speedy drive, convenience, and free parking anywhere.

When people are regularly encased in hermetically sealed wheeled bubbled, they turn into sociopaths.

Re: The Amorality of Self-Driving Cars

#60

Post by Retric »

CM30 wrote: post #30
Retric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People sometimes need the back sides of lane markers to be red to show there driving in the wrong direction at highway speeds. That's the kind of safety issues self driving cars need to address. Highly convoluted but what if a clown and a child jump off an overpass style crap completely misses the point. Self driving cars could chose to randomly kill someone randomly once per 1,000 years on the road and stil…

Safer than what's already there is a valid point, but it's also (somewhat unfortunately) not one a lot of legal systems tend to go by. For example, it's likely that if alcohol or tobacco was invented in this decade, it would have been banned as a 'dangerous' drug. But safer alternatives aren't exactly legalised because they're safer than what's already out there.

Depends on how similar something is. There are a lot of drugs that are basically morphine with basically all it's downsides, that have been approved. ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydromorphone Trying to get a drug like that approved on it's own would have been vastly harder.

As to cars the major upside is they are all one on one collisions. And insurance companies are really good at handling that already. There are even laws limiting how much pedestrians for example can sue for if they are struck in some areas.

Post reply on HN