- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Self-driving cars: ethics and economic concerns
Posted on 12/28/16 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 12/28/16 at 3:44 pm
Autonomous cars are happening. Fast. But what will we decided in terms of programming them ethically/morally?
quote:And just think about the impact on a wide range of jobs: 128 jobs that will disappear in the era of driverless cars
A self-driving car carrying a family of four on a rural two-lane highway spots a bouncing ball ahead. As the vehicle approaches a child runs out to retrieve the ball. Should the car risk its passengers’ lives by swerving to the side—where the edge of the road meets a steep cliff? Or should the car continue on its path, ensuring its passengers’ safety at the child’s expense? This scenario and many others pose moral and ethical dilemmas that carmakers, car buyers and regulators must address before vehicles should be given full autonomy
18
Posted on 12/28/16 at 3:48 pm to Big Scrub TX
Keeping jobs for the sake of keeping jobs seems very counterproductive for the most developed society in the world. I get what you are saying.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 3:50 pm to LSUtoOmaha
The job stuff is interesting just to note as a prediction, but it's the ethical stuff that I really think is an actual problem. It's almost beyond dispute that the "ethical" choice between killing the driver or, say, 20 people in a crowd he is about to plow into is simple - kill the driver. But will you really buy a car that is programmed to make that decision with you as the driver?
Posted on 12/28/16 at 3:51 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Almost as big as the impact on that kid...
And just think about the impact on a wide range of jobs
:rimshot:
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:00 pm to Big Scrub TX
The car will make a better decision than 99.9% of drivers would.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:01 pm to DAbully
quote:The car will decide whatever we tell it decide. That's the whole question we face.
The car will make a better decision than 99.9% of drivers would.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:03 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
The car will decide whatever we tell it decide. That's the whole question we face.
Collective we? Yes. You as a driver? No. Because individuals are at their absolute worst when behind the wheel of a vehicle.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:06 pm to Big Scrub TX
Why does the child live that close to a cliff? Where are the parents? Why is the ball in the road?
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:09 pm to Big Scrub TX
This is foolish. The real answer is the car will just stop, because it's response time and control will be way beyond human capabilities. So neither dies.
The odds of this being a real scenario are nearly non-existent.
The odds of this being a real scenario are nearly non-existent.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:12 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:It's very easy to imagine less extreme scenarios which involve a decision being made "against" the driver and in favor of others on the road. In any event, the car will still have to be programmed with something to give it direction.
This is foolish. The real answer is the car will just stop, because it's response time and control will be way beyond human capabilities. So neither dies.
The odds of this being a real scenario are nearly non-existent.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:21 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
But what will we decided in terms of programming them ethically/morally?
I don't get this complaint against autonomous vehicles. How many humans are actually going to drive off a cliff to not take out the bus full of babies and nuns? They might accidentally drive off a cliff trying to not hit the bus to avoid killing themselves, but most accidents happen so fast it's your survival instinct doing the acting, not your higher brain functions pondering moral dilemmas.
The cars should be programmed to choose accident avoidance, and if it can't be avoided they should aim for the lowest impact. Maybe that means you plow into the mini van full of kids instead of the back of an 18 wheeler that's just full of cargo, but if these systems are worth a damn the payoff is going to be in fewer total accidents, not accidents sucking less when they happen.
quote:
And just think about the impact on a wide range of jobs:
The computers and robots are coming for most of our jobs. Most things that are routine and usually handled the same way will easily be done by a machine in the coming decades.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:29 pm to TigerinATL
quote:I don't know that it's a complaint more than it is a casual fact: the cars will have to be programmed with some "ethics" which might run counter to the preservation of the life of the owner. What if you could buy a "parent bot" that was tasked nominally with taking care of your children and it had to run into a burning daycare center. It can prioritize rescuing YOUR child or it can prioritize rescuing the most children possible. Would you really buy a parent bot with the setting of the pure moral utility of possibly letting your child burn?
I don't get this complaint against autonomous vehicles.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:33 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
128 jobs that will disappear in the era of driverless cars
Much like the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the horseless carriage.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:36 pm to Big Scrub TX
There is no ethical dilemma. Autonomous vehicles do not use rule-based thinking.. they use machine learning. The trolley problem is a tool used for philosophy not for programming "morality" into an autonomous vehicle. We'll have fully automated vehicles in less than 5 years.. the technology exists today.
Tesla predicts crash moments before it happens
Tesla predicts crash moments before it happens
This post was edited on 12/28/16 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:36 pm to madmaxvol
quote:Similar, but a bit more far-reaching than people seem to realize. These cars are going to radically change our world...and it's coming sooner than you think.
Much like the buggy whip makers at the dawn of the horseless carriage.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:43 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Similar, but a bit more far-reaching than people seem to realize. These cars are going to radically change our world...and it's coming sooner than you think.
I think it is probably inevitable...but I also think that displacement of drivers will be constrained by the cost and availability of self-driving cars for several years. It will not be an overnight change, but will phase in over a period of years.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:45 pm to madmaxvol
quote:Yeah. 5 years from now, we'll have more SDC than people realize, but the huge impacts might not be for 15 years or more. It's very possible to imagine Uber going to 0, though.
I think it is probably inevitable...but I also think that displacement of drivers will be constrained by the cost and availability of self-driving cars for several years. It will not be an overnight change, but will phase in over a period of years.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:51 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What if you could buy a "parent bot" that was tasked nominally with taking care of your children and it had to run into a burning daycare center. It can prioritize rescuing YOUR child or it can prioritize rescuing the most children possible. Would you really buy a parent bot with the setting of the pure moral utility of possibly letting your child burn?
That is different than the car example though. For the cars choose the lowest impact like most humans would if they were even capable of doing those calculations, problem solved. For the Nannybot, I think "joining the pack" of the family that buys it and therefor prioritizing it's own family members will be a natural way to program it.
The moral dilemma comes not for the personal Nannybot but the Daycarebot. Babies are dead weight, you can probably save more children by herding the walkers and crawlers out first. That wouldn't be the human reaction, most people would save the helpless babies, but saving more kids would be the utilitarian thing to do. And that's where the questions get interesting, is the choice they would make stripped of human emotion and instinct a better choice?
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:54 pm to DAbully
quote:
The car will make a better decision than 99.9% of drivers would.
No.
Posted on 12/28/16 at 4:57 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Similar, but a bit more far-reaching than people seem to realize. These cars are going to radically change our world...and it's coming sooner than you think.
I welcome a world where semis can operate much more safely on our interstates around the clock.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News