VeganPizza69 ⓋA Driverless Car in China Hit a Pedestrian. Social Media Users Are Siding With the Car
To repeat myself from the other post where I’ll probably be downroaded:
The car should be programmed to self-destruct or take out the passengers always. This is the only way it can counter its self-serving bias or conflict of interests. The bonus is that there are fewer deadly machines on the face of the planet and fewer people interested in collateral damage.
Teaching robots to do “collateral damage” would be an excellent path to the Terminator universe.
Make this upfront and clear for all users of these “robotaxis”.
Now the moral conflict becomes very clear: profit vs life. Choose.
GeneralEmergencyself-destruct
What?
take out the passengers
WHAT?!?
The car should be programmed to self-destruct or take out the passengers always.>
Users here don’t understanding the dilemma nor the programmatic aspects.
The car has to be programmed to solve the dilemma on the spot:
Not talking about it won’t make this go away. It will simply be some decision made by developers and maybe there’s a toggle for the car owner, a kill switch. Either way, it’s lose-lose.
As we’re in fuck cars, I’m assuming that people understand that fuck cars. Why should this impunity of killing with cars be furthered by encoding in automatic programming? Let the owners of vehicles face the immediate consequences of owning such vehicles. That’s fair. Don’t want to die in your robocar? Fine, drive very slowly and very rarely.
What?
That’s not what happened here, and I struggle to imagine any situation where that’s the only two options.
I struggle to imagine any situation where that’s the only two options.
Alright, I’ll take this in good faith. Here’s how that happens:
Speeding.
As we all know here, speeding makes crashes way worse, and it makes the braking function fail proportionally.
So, imagine:
The killer road bot is speeding through a street. It’s a bit narrow, there are cars parked illegally on the sides.
The killer road bot enters a curve with speed and a there’s someone on a crosswalk, midway.
The killer road bot controls at least these aspects of the car: brakes, acceleration, steering. The brakes can be engaged, but the speed makes them useless in preventing running over the person on the crosswalk. The acceleration is not useful. Everything is happening too fast really, and the killer road bot can’t even calculate which direction the person is walking in on the crosswalk.
The only useful control left is direction by steering. The killed road bot thus has these choices:
Choice 1 leads to the obvious outcome.
Choice 2 branches out:
2.1. Turn left
2.2. Turn right
If the killer road bot turns left (2.1), it flips the car over and sends it rolling into other cars, thus endangering the passenger(s).
If the killed road bot turns right (2.2), it hits a large tree.
These are the only options.
Oh I get now. You have a preconceived agenda that makes this discussion entirely pointless. Either that or you value the trolley problem way too much.
Yeah, my agenda is public health and equality. I don’t like it when a special class of people has impunity for roaming the land harming people, even less so when that’s automatic.
Which is why you want them to carry a bomb?
Self-destruct doesn’t exclusively mean “blow up”. When the AI system chooses to run off the road or into some tree, that’s also self-destruction.
Or we could apply the brakes
TOO FAST FOR BRAKES
if you want equality, then why do you want to get rid of cars? Do you actively hate disabled people?
then why do you want to get rid of cars?
because cars are a means of stratification and denial of rights . Cars can never be universal rights. It’s literally impossible, so they have inequality baked in as a “car system”.
Do you actively hate disabled people?
Quite the opposite.
aaand… those with mobility-based disabilities which I was obviously referring to, and to whom you actively disregard?
Cars are a tool for equity and equality, and your ignorance of this is obvious.
You don’t seem to understand the challenge. First of all, cars require inequality:
- children can’t use cars
- old people can’t use cars
That’s just the starting base of inequality.
Some listening, in case you don’t want to read:
thewaroncars.org/…/109-inclusive-transportation-w…
thewaroncars.org/…/125-when-driving-is-not-an-opt…
because there’s a lot to understand, especially if you’ve lived a “car life”.
oh, sweety. no. Cute attempt at a gish gallop, but no.
That’s not a Gish gallop. Clown.