Let's play a game

 

 

You are driving down a straight free road at 30mph at daylight - the recommended maximum driving speed of that location - there are barely any other cars on this road at this time of day, but there are a lot of pedestrians. The traffic lights are all green. Suddenly 2 young kids aged 10 & 11 and their dog run out of nowhere into the middle of the road, you do not have enough time to stop, only enough time to manoeuvre to the pavement to avoid hitting them. There are also 2 very old pensioners on the pavement, if you hit the pensioners, they will surely die. If you hit the children & the dogs, there is a chance they will die. You have only a split second to make a decision.

 

What would you do and why?

 

Reply below with what you would do and why?

 

Guys please try to answer as honestly & realistically as you think you can.

I know this is a hard question to answer, but this is something that is considered in artificial intelligence with self driving cars and their decisions

Let's keep this spam free please, I don't want to have to moderate posts (brewers)

So this is as real an answer I think I can give.

 

 

I'd end up hitting the pensioners as you call them.  Given the scenario where you're suggesting there's not enough time to miss the people in front of me, my first and initial instinct would be to swerve to miss them.  If I surely didn't have time to hit my brakes in enough time to miss hitting the kids, I certainly wouldn't have enough time to likely see everyone possibly around me if I swerved or determine the better option on who to hit.  I'd likely swerve to miss the kids, and then realize the older people and do my best to miss them but at that point I'd have already been committed to swerving.  

Btw this question I got the idea from the AI behind self driving cars, the AI behind them has to make a quick decision on what action it has to take, obviously its a computer and can process the environment faster than humans can. But it inevitably only has those 2 options to make a decision with.

 

So assuming you're aware of the pensioners on the sidewalk and you're also aware of the children in front of you, but you have to make a decision who has to die/potentially die, even though the situation was completely out of your hand and it's the children who caused it.

Btw this question I got the idea from the AI behind self driving cars, the AI behind them has to make a quick decision on what action it has to take, obviously its a computer and can process the environment faster than humans can. But it inevitably only has those 2 options to make a decision with.

 

So assuming you're aware of the pensioners on the sidewalk and you're also aware of the children in front of you, but you have to make a decision who has to die/potentially die, even though the situation was completely out of your hand and it's the children who caused it.

 

 

I mean if given I knew everything and simply wasn't acting upon what my initial instinct would be, to swerve, I'd have to go with the kids.  There's no real good answer, but at the end of the day, the kids are the one who caused the problem.  I take the scenario like I do with how I been told about deer, don't swerve to miss and instead hit the deer.  If you swerve and miss the deer and hit a tree or another car/person you're liable.  The same maybe could be said about a human life...if you swerve to miss something out of your control and injure someone else, does the fault then lie on you?  At end of day, it was kids fault, and if I had to potentially injure or kill someone, I surely wouldn't want to injure or kill someone who wasn't at fault or in the wrong.  

Boiled down, I have to choose definitely killing 2 people vs potentially killing two people and a dog. I would rather not kill anyone, therefore I choose the latter because there’s a chance they will survive.

Samus, I am actually gonna answer this one normally

 

I would probably swerve off the road and take my chances. I wouldnt be able to live with myself if I hit and killed a dog.

Boiled down, I have to choose definitely killing 2 people vs potentially killing two people and a dog. I would rather not kill anyone, therefore I choose the latter because there’s a chance they will survive.

 

this is little part of the algorithm in which self driving cars AI actually considers

 

 

Boiled down, I have to choose definitely killing 2 people vs potentially killing two people and a dog. I would rather not kill anyone, therefore I choose the latter because there’s a chance they will survive.

 

 

 

this is little part of the algorithm in which self driving cars AI actually considers

It is the most logical, moral choice. If all life is valuable and there is the choice of definite death vs. not definite death, the only logical choice is to go for not definite death.

I don't get how a self driving car would be able to determine it.  It's one thing to ask a computer to access and make a decision based on surroundings, it's another to access surroundings and possibly scenarios an determine an age of someone to put into the equation.  Is the age just for substance and not actually factored into it?  

 

 

 

Boiled down, I have to choose definitely killing 2 people vs potentially killing two people and a dog. I would rather not kill anyone, therefore I choose the latter because there’s a chance they will survive.

 

 

this is little part of the algorithm in which self driving cars AI actually considers

It is the most logical, moral choice. If all life is valuable and there is the choice of definite death vs. not definite death, the only logical choice is to go for not definite death.

This is exactly how I chose. If there is a possibility the children will live as apposed to definitely killing to others, I have to hope that the possible will be the outcome.

I don't get how a self driving car would be able to determine it.  It's one thing to ask a computer to access and make a decision based on surroundings, it's another to access surroundings and possibly scenarios an determine an age of someone to put into the equation.  Is the age just for substance and not actually factored into it?  

I think the part age may be Samus’s way of turning this into a moral dilemma. Does the age of the people involved influence your decision? Computers don’t have independent values and don’t know the difference btwn a senior and a child.

 

In the instant when you make the decision while driving how do you measure and process factors like age and survival potential? This would be taking his test very literally. I would not be able to process the info fast enough and if the collision is that imminent I doubt most people could think morality through.

 

I don't get how a self driving car would be able to determine it.  It's one thing to ask a computer to access and make a decision based on surroundings, it's another to access surroundings and possibly scenarios an determine an age of someone to put into the equation.  Is the age just for substance and not actually factored into it?  

I think the part age may be Samus’s way of turning this into a moral dilemma. Does the age of the people involved influence your decision? Computers don’t have independent values and don’t know the difference btwn a senior and a child.

 

In the instant when you make the decision while driving how do you measure and process factors like age and survival potential? This would be taking his test very literally. I would not be able to process the info fast enough and if the collision is that imminent I doubt most people could think morality through.

 

 

 

But just like computers can't adjust for age or distinguish the difference, how can they also take into account for the actions of a person.  What I mean by that, how can they distinguish what say what the older people on the sidewalk will do, or if they react quick enough.  Maybe they were stopped and saw this all about to unfold before it did and got out of the way, or jumped on their hood.  Obviously an older person walking on the street wont be able to react as quick as say a younger person.  Maybe they sense it coming and jump and roll on the hood that leaves them injured but not killed, whereas the kids are probably blind to whats about to happen.  

 

And if it can't tell age, then how does hitting a kids likely head on or hitting someone on the sidewalk head on differ?  You're likely going the same speed or just about at impact, so how is it a better chance the kids live then the person on the street?

I literally just had this same discussion with a friend the other day. Natural instinct is to slam on the breaks and swerve, which leads to overcompensating, you hitting oncoming traffic, wrecking your own car by possibly flipping it, or just maybe nothing bad happens and everyone is okay. I'm not that person. I've struck possums and squirrels before that appeared on the other side of a hill's crest. And each time I didn't swerve but applied the brakes. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. If I swerve, destroy my car, and become paralyzed or die, who will pay my medical/funeral costs? Who will pay to have my car replaced (insurance covers most of that dependent on current vehicle value)? Who will pay for my families' expenses once my life insurance runs out in 10 years? Who will raise my children while my wife goes back to work? Because I can guarantee you, it won't be whoever was standing in the middle of the road. Not because they are meanspirited, but because they don't have the money.

 

Somewhat heartless? Maybe, but I've watched plenty of dash cam footage where people swerve to avoid a pedestrian, a car break checking them, a car rapidly changing multiple lanes, and when they swerve it becomes bumper cars and vehicles ending up on their roofs. Thankfully we live in the day where automobiles have relatively high safety ratings, and I only drive large vehicles, so I'll hit the brakes and take my chances in a crash.

 

I like to help others and would hate to see someone die. But my first and foremost job is for me to make it home safely to my family.

I don't get how a self driving car would be able to determine it.  It's one thing to ask a computer to access and make a decision based on surroundings, it's another to access surroundings and possibly scenarios an determine an age of someone to put into the equation.  Is the age just for substance and not actually factored into it?  

Well the question you should be asking is how would a computer be able to determine? As of today there are several AI's that can identify & put people in brackets. e.g child, young male, elderly female etc etc

 

I don't get how a self driving car would be able to determine it.  It's one thing to ask a computer to access and make a decision based on surroundings, it's another to access surroundings and possibly scenarios an determine an age of someone to put into the equation.  Is the age just for substance and not actually factored into it?  

Well the question you should be asking is how would a computer be able to determine? As of today there are several AI's that can identify & put people in brackets. e.g child, young male, elderly female etc etc

 

 

 

I know computers and AI have come a long way, and I certainly am not up to speed on just how far we're at with it.  I am unsure how a system can determine age, obviously for a younger kid, height can be looked at compared to an adult (outside of little people if that's the PC term).  I just wonder if a computer is able to assess all the parameters fast enough in a situation like this to know all the surroundings, age of people around, and possible injury that could accure.

 

TBH, in a situation like this, I don't think I like the idea of it.  Let's per say the computer in an automated car determined the best survival rate was to actually swerve and miss the kids, and instead run into someone on the sidewalk.  Is that what someone wants?  If I am the one on the sidewalk, minding my own business and I get plowed into by a car that has determined it was better to hit me then the person who caused someone to swerve, I think that's fucked.  Why on earth would you program something to make it hit an innocent bystander instead of the person who caused it just because I have a slight edge on survival rate.  So let's say I'm not killed, I'm merely paralyzed now from the neck down, what type of life is that computer putting me in for the rest of the life.  I'd sue the shit out of them company.  I could at least be more understanding of being hit due to a person's instinct of swerving and not realizing I'll be hit, but not a computer that has determined I'm a better option to be hit instead of someone who caused said accident to occur.  I can get behind a system that can assess the surroundings and determine if it's safe to swerve and prevent anyone from being hit, I'm not for a computer that picks an innocent bystander because they have a edge on being able to survive though there's still a chance i can die or be seriously injured.  

Well it's more of picking the best case scenario. We have to remember that if a human was in that situation, we would probably not be able to make the "best case" decision in that time.

 

I may be wrong, but it's something to consider, is it really a computer/AI problem? Cause with the absence of an AI and just normal human interaction, the entire resolution would probably be much worse, not just for innocent bystanders but also for the passengers.

 

 

Now should AI's be programmed to protect its immediate passengers more than obstacles around it? I dunno, but I know these are all discussions that are being talked about and I don't think there's any right or wrong answer.

Observe the entirety of this image & read the descriptions

 

Honestly I'd like to think I'd hit the old people... but the kids might survive... they might be a better choice... but they might also be fucked for life and make your insurance company hate you... Or just don't decide and let Darwinism take its course. 

Well it's more of picking the best case scenario. We have to remember that if a human was in that situation, we would probably not be able to make the "best case" decision in that time.

 

I may be wrong, but it's something to consider, is it really a computer/AI problem? Cause with the absence of an AI and just normal human interaction, the entire resolution would probably be much worse, not just for innocent bystanders but also for the passengers.

 

 

Now should AI's be programmed to protect its immediate passengers more than obstacles around it? I dunno, but I know these are all discussions that are being talked about and I don't think there's any right or wrong answer.

Observe the entirety of this image & read the descriptions

 

and this is why self driving cars are stupid.  i am not fucking dying cause my car picked it as "the best case"

 

Well it's more of picking the best case scenario. We have to remember that if a human was in that situation, we would probably not be able to make the "best case" decision in that time.

 

I may be wrong, but it's something to consider, is it really a computer/AI problem? Cause with the absence of an AI and just normal human interaction, the entire resolution would probably be much worse, not just for innocent bystanders but also for the passengers.

 

 

Now should AI's be programmed to protect its immediate passengers more than obstacles around it? I dunno, but I know these are all discussions that are being talked about and I don't think there's any right or wrong answer.

Observe the entirety of this image & read the descriptions

 

and this is why self driving cars are stupid.  i am not fucking dying cause my car picked it as "the best case"

 

But then it could be a case you either die and kill other people because humans are stupidier and can't make faster decisions than computers

 

 

Well it's more of picking the best case scenario. We have to remember that if a human was in that situation, we would probably not be able to make the "best case" decision in that time.

 

I may be wrong, but it's something to consider, is it really a computer/AI problem? Cause with the absence of an AI and just normal human interaction, the entire resolution would probably be much worse, not just for innocent bystanders but also for the passengers.

 

 

Now should AI's be programmed to protect its immediate passengers more than obstacles around it? I dunno, but I know these are all discussions that are being talked about and I don't think there's any right or wrong answer.

Observe the entirety of this image & read the descriptions

 

and this is why self driving cars are stupid.  i am not fucking dying cause my car picked it as "the best case"

 

But then it could be a case you either die and kill other people because humans are stupidier and can't make faster decisions than computers

 

 

From a pure utility perspective should probably always go for the wall. There's a good chance that those in the car will suffer significant injury if they hit the pedestrians at a speed high enough to kill all 5 anyway. 

I think cases like this, morality decisions should only come into play AFTER the legality of the situation has been assessed. If the Most Awesome Person on Earth is crossing a red light, and the decision is between hitting them and a 100 year old person on the sidewalk, then the elderly person should be saved, for the simple reason that the other guy was breaking traffic regulations.

 

If we were to give up on that, then “valuable” people could walk around doing as they please with total immunity from the consequences rule-breaking, while other, law-abiding people get punished.

I would do nothing, because... I don't even have a Driver's Licence yet.

Isn't there two ways to swerve and only two groups one in front and one on one side, swerve to the unoccupied side.

If we were to give up on that, then “valuable” people could walk around doing as they please with total immunity from the consequences rule-breaking, while other, law-abiding people get punished.

Though this is also exactly the case in real life.

 

If we were to give up on that, then “valuable” people could walk around doing as they please with total immunity from the consequences rule-breaking, while other, law-abiding people get punished.

Though this is also exactly the case in real life.

 

Ha!

See someone on the road, will definitely swerve aside, if someone there then its God will.