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

891–900 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#891

Post by galdosdi »

dorgo wrote: post #801
synu wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? There are still a lot of tactics a driver (or AI) can follow to improve the outcome if the brakes fail, such as swerving to avoid dangerous things while the vehicle naturally coasts to a stop, intentionally driving into a soft thing or up a hill if available (eg runaway truck ramp or a pile of haybales) or in the worst case, decide which of two bad things to run into is less bad. Not making a choice is a choice too, as in the trolley problem, it means you'll hit whatever is straight in front.

So in that sense it's quite relevant. Great, you can usually just apply the brakes. What if you can't or don't have enough following distance? (less common for an AI driver that will try to leave enough distance, but that's not entirely in your own control; another driver can merge in front of you at any time they wish and if an incident occurs before you can increase the distance, you will effectively have to swerve since you won't have enough braking capacity.

It is worthwhile to take a look at dashcam videos (eg, youtube, reddit) to get an idea of the many, many complex scenarios a driver can find themselves in in which a crash is imminent, but the driver has many options and must decide what strategy to take to get the least bad outcome.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#892

Post by tshaddox »

partdavid wrote: post #890
tshaddox wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, that version just highlights how far-fetched it is to actually find yourself in this situation with all the provided knowledge about the situation and confidence that you're not mistaken about or missing any important details.

It's so far-fetched that it's intended to be a thought experiment rather than a role play, which I think people miss. The entire point is to factor out all those innumerable details which complicate every real-life situation to see if there are underlying principles that can be illuminated. It's not about whether it's a trolley switch or a gun or a baby-grinding machine, it's about if there's an answer to how many ba…

But it’s reasonable to question the usefulness of any supposed insights gained from thinking through one’s answers to the trolley problem. It’s quite conceivable that no insights can be extended at all to any scenario in the real world.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#893

Post by int_19h »

hyper_reality wrote: post #642
sneak wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my circus, not my monkeys. I don't think I can be held morally responsible for inaction in any circumstance. We didn't start the fire etc. I answered "no pull" to every one except the one where the express goal was pranking the trolley driver (and no implied harm from pulling). This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but the only one I can reconcile with my own concept of responsibility.

To pick an extreme but well-known thought experiment. You are walking past a pond, and see a child drowning in it. You glance around and there is nobody else nearby. You could easily jump in and save the child. It will certainly die if you do not. If you choose to do nothing and ignore the drowning child, are you really not morally responsible in any way for the child's death?

You're morally responsible, but it's a different degree of moral responsibility compared to throwing said child into the pond.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#894

Post by lwswl »

"Do Nothing" No, you have to click button to do nothing(two levers), this is an incorrect demo, it should have had a timer or something similar(so "doing nothing" would e synonymous with doing nothing).

Since our trolley is at rest, I pose that the best choice is to do nothing(really nothing,not the lever marked "do nothing") so it never runs over anyone.

I pressed "do nothing" twice before I realized this, so you can rightly call me a fool.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#895

Post by lynx09 »

synu wrote: post #814
salford wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, I imagine the next course of action would be something like "do nothing" — continue straight, try to be predictable, hope that other people in the situation can react accordingly.

If we are still doing the trolley problem it would be “the brakes have failed, and … do you continue straight and definitely hit A, or turn the wheel and definitely hit B”.

You should not change lanes unless it is safe to do so. The car should let off the gas, put on hazards and try to move to the side of the road. I am with the other engineers, the trolley problem does not apply here. Why waste effort deciding who lives and who dies when more time can be spent figuring out how to handle these situations safely?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#896

Post by theptip »

jodrellblank wrote: post #879
theptip wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a thought experiment for studying ethics. You can modify all of the variables as you choose, but in general you want to pick the simplest form that suffices to demonstrate the point. In this case making the people different would make the experiment needlessly complex. The problem as-stated (assuming identical individuals) already illustrates the consequentialist/deontologist conflict. I think you are perhaps en…

You said " 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. " and I took that to mean that killing someone to save five people was what you consider the consequentialist 'obvious choice'. From there you now clarify that the people are all the same so all we h…

You said “reducing it to more is better”, which is itself an oversimplification. That is not the principle at work here.

There are various utility functions that utilitarians might choose, for example hedonic (Mills) or eudaimonic. And various other assumptions you must make, such as “is the average life net-positive in utility or net-negative?”. Then you put your values into your utility function and assess the possible worlds and their likelihood of occurring. (For simplicity I’m leaving out the utility of having rules as heuristics, but worth mentioning as two-level utilitarianism seems appealing to me).

All else being equal, as in this thought experiment, saving more lives is better than saving fewer in my and most utilitarians’ opinion. But “more lives is better” is not the underlying principle at work in making the evaluation/decision. It’s merely the result of the calculation. One can easily construct thought experiments where more lives in existence would reduce utility and not increase it, in which case utilitarians would advocate for not saving those lives. For example if we modify the trolley problem to say pulling the lever will also cause the five survivors to be imprisoned and tortured for the rest of their lives.

(Look up “the repugnant conclusion” if you want to see a thought experiment where common intuitive morality breaks down under most systems).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#897

Post by sbf501 »

pfraze wrote: post #795
sbf501 wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who am I to decide the fate of other humans. In cases where I have to choose between people, I do nothing. I'm not god.

That’s a huge assumption that inaction is equivalent to not making a decision

It is a decision not to intervene. It is as if I weren't even there. I can't possibly decide what life is more valuable, so I decide not to intervene.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#899

Post by eurasiantiger »

littlestymaar wrote: post #458
Aeolun wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s reasonable to assume the trolley goes fast enough to do the deed, but not fast enough it couldn’t round the bend.

That's clearly a reasonable assumption, since a trolley will kill people underneath at any speed, no matter how low (the slower, the more horrible the death will be though…)

I posit there is a small positive non-lethal speed. Where are the MythBusters… :)

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#900

Post by e_y_ »

darkerside wrote: post #513
JonathanFly wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly random thoughts that went through my head at this question 1) Many people's life savings is 0. A bargain! 2) If _I_ were one of the five people, I'd try and make it up to the lever puller. Lever-guy might even come out ahead. 3) If I pull this lever right away in question 3, if there are later questions about giving up my life savings, they'll be free. This might be the value lever pull! I might be kicking myse…

Other people have worked a long, long time for their life savings, and it's very likely that, as appreciative as these people might be, it's just as likely that this person gets a sincere thank you but no financial compensation. In the right situation, I could see it leading to severe depression as the puller feels they gave up everything and nobody cares. I still think you need to pull the lever.

I mean, I hope they'd at least vouch for you in a GoFundMe
Post reply on HN