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

Absurd Trolley Problems

neal.fun

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#801

Post by dorgo »

synu wrote: post #746
el_nahual wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a (famous?) quote from a google engineer Andrew Chatham who worked on self driving cars. When asked about the trolley problem, he said "It takes some of the intellectual intrigue out of the problem, but the answer is almost always ‘slam on the brakes’” [0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/22/self-driv...

You could adjust the question to be “the brakes have failed and..” to avoid that out.

I know, you try to save the trolley scenario. But if brakes fail then it doesn't matter what the AI (or driver) decides. To blame is the one who is responsible for the brakes not to fail.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#802

Post by com2kid »

agentultra wrote: post #750
kortex wrote: post #623

I found myself following a heuristic that is basically Asimov's laws: - whenever possible, do no harm - do not let harm occur due to inaction - when given a choice, preserve the most amount of healthy lifespan in aggregate - higher lifeforms are more valuable than lower ones (cat vs lobsters) - deferred consequence is better than immediate (since it opens the door to other later interventions) It kind of really bring…

Enough context is lacking. That's kind of what makes it all absurd. Take the cat vs. lobsters. Did you know felis catus is responsible for the extinction of some 37 species of birds world wide mostly due to colonization. They're not indigenous predators to the North Americas and enjoy the protections and long life afforded by their proximity to humans while killing for entertainment. Lobsters on the other hand? Usefu…

If the lobsters are tied to a trolley track, they aren't long for this world anyway. Trolley tracks aren't exactly a lobster's native habitat.

Untie the cat and it'll, likely, be a-ok.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#803

Post by ccbccccbbcccbb »

This falsely puts the burden of responsibility on the lever man, while it is those who tied the people to the tracks, launched the trolley and forced the lever man to incur all the blame are the real culprit. Making people believe the contrary is the fundamental principle of operation of all politics.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#804

Post by theptip »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #522
rax0m wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the problems under the assumption that "pulling the lever" was an act, while doing nothing was not acting. Implied legal (and moral) liabilities made a difference in my choices.

Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference. It's a binary decision with two outcomes, in my personal view it is irrelevant which of the outcomes is caused by physical action and which by inaction (at least, supposing that you have enough time to think about what to do - obviously, if you have to react in a split sec…

Personally I agree with you and it seems obvious to me to pull the lever. Here is my take on why there are people that believe it’s obviously the other way around:

There is a fundamental branching point of ethical systems between consequentialism (eg utilitarianism, which says the outcome is what matters) and deontology (which says basically that some set of rules exist, and ethical behavior equates to following those rules, no matter the consequence).

If you are a deontologist, “the ends don’t justify the means” and it’s rarely ok to just kill someone to save someone else. If you are a consequentialist then the choice to live in the better world is obvious.

Western morality, being heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian systems with Ten Commandments and books of God’s Rules, has a lot of deontological assumptions baked in (as does the legal code). So even with time to ponder the problem, “thou shalt not kill” will weigh heavy on many.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#806

Post by AtNightWeCode »

I think it would be better if the choice was both ways. Like the track was going to an end and you had to make your mind up. I think this is biased towards doing nothing.

68 frags for me.

We had horrible exercises like this back in school. But then it was often mentally disabled people versus healthy people.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#809

Post by Etherlord87 »

akvadrako wrote: post #480
maest wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's problematic to assume these problems are in a 0-context vacuum because that would mean your actions don't actually have consequences. If the world ends immediately at the end of the experiment, then your choices in the experiment don't have any meaning, imo.

That is an extreme consequentialist view. Something I can relate to, but not how most people consider moral issues. If you are in a burning, sinking ship and all going to die for sure, it's still immoral to rape someone.

However if you're in a plane nose-diving vertically, shooting someone a second before the plane hits the ground (in a way that obviously is going to kill everyone), hardly has any moral relevancy. It's taking 1s of life from someone, probably comparable to smoking a cig near someone. More so, this is a low-quality second of life, with all the stress coming from the awareness of imminent death.

So the argument still stands, the difference in the consequences, when considered outside of any context, is simply not worth the mental effort to figure out if the lever should be pulled. The exercise is only interesting because it provokes to think about real life scenarios.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#810

Post by a_wild_dandan »

Dudeman112 wrote: post #757
Sebb767 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying Unfortunately, that's the one (not) making the decision in this case. > Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition. Is, though? I mean, in general we should strive to improve the world, but does getting overwhelmed by all the bad things that you should be doing som…

Maybe if we were overwhelmed by all the bad things that we should be doing something about it would eventually lead us to a point where we would be doing something instead of just living our lives doing nothing (for the most part)? If we are already talking about changing the human cognition, might as well add an ability to function while being aware of the issues

I have choice paralysis while buying pants. I'm 100% capable of grabbing a pair and swiping the plastic rectangle. But I just don't know a good solution. I'm afraid of picking wrong.

And that's just pants. Hell, even in math -- the most rigorous subject ever -- there are undecidable problems. Asking me to decide squishy issues of who lives and dies, who I should spent resources helping (including myself), etc...that's so many orders of magnitude more complex, so many immediate and cascading future consequences, of unimaginable import. It's crushing, and maybe without a correct (or even good) answer! It's pants ultra out there. If you make me internalize all the issues, then the only decision I'll make is which corner to lay by in the fetal position.

The only idyllic "human cognition" fix here is basically omniscience. And that kinda feels like cheating, y'know?

Post reply on HN