- 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
re: Self-driving cars: ethics and economic concerns
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:03 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:03 pm to Big Scrub TX
I think it's MIT that's been running the ethical quiz.
0
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:05 pm to Freauxzen
Also, when driverless cars are a reality, it's not going to be every car doing its own thing. They will all be communicating and reacting to an adverse condition simultaneously. All 6 cars in a pack traveling down the interstate will sense the deer running into the road and all 6 will react to avoid a collision. If a collision is inevitable, then they react to keep it to the one car that the deer intersected, and will all slow down (or speed up, or swerve) to minimize the damage done to the one car.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:11 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Boiled down, the question is merely: will a potential autonomous vehicle owner be willing to own an autonomous vehicle which does not necessarily prioritize the life of the vehicle owner (or its occupants)?
No one will own cars, it will all be ride sharing.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:21 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
Also, when driverless cars are a reality, it's not going to be every car doing its own thing. They will all be communicating and reacting to an adverse condition simultaneously. All 6 cars in a pack traveling down the interstate will sense the deer running into the road and all 6 will react to avoid a collision. If a collision is inevitable, then they react to keep it to the one car that the deer intersected, and will all slow down (or speed up, or swerve) to minimize the damage done to the one car.
This. It's kind of the problem with this discussion. It's way too limited in application. The problem assumes literally nothing else changes in our transportation system, when by the very nature of SDC, everything changes.
What if each car that passes said situation, in this instance a kid playing with a ball, gets that information. That "kids with balls" or "teenagers smoking by the bus stop," are assigned a risk rating/data point that is then transmitted to other cards approaching the same vicinity/sector/crossroad etc.?
Perhaps the car is not seeing the kid for the first time and it already knows it's there?
Again, yes there will be situations where perfect information isn't available, where the machine is "making a choice," but my feeling that those will be so rare that 1) we'll already have saved way more life than we can count with this kind of tech 2) People are dying anyway in this situation, ie, there is no way out. We'll just have to learn how to accept this as a culture.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:24 pm to reb13
quote:
No one will own cars, it will all be ride sharing.
I mean maybe in the really distant future but I highly doubt you're going to get everyone to buy into this anytime soon. Especially in rural or suburban areas(although I doubt driverless becomes the norm in more rural areas for many many years) . Probably more likely in big cities where large populations already do not own cars. It will take generations and a pretty huge shift in the way Americans think before individuals give up their cars regardless of who is driving it.
This post was edited on 12/29/16 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 12/29/16 at 4:41 pm to Big Scrub TX
Just imagine if we had never allowed cars to be built because of the carriage manufacturer and horse stable jobs that were lost. I guess we shouldn't have cured polio either so that we could save the jobs of all the wheelchair makers.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 5:02 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
It's kind of the problem with this discussion.
There are lots of problems with this discussion. "Who should the computer CHOOSE to kill?". This shouldn't even be part of the discussion. People drive into ditches and on coming traffic to avvoid collisions, it's our natural survival instinct kicking in, not the result of soul searching. Program it to make the choice a human would make, typically collision avoidance/minimization. That's it, no ethical dilemma because it made the same choice any reasonable human would make.
The SDCs will need to prove they are significantly better than us before we turn the keys over to them en masse, but I suspect they will be and when they do, accidents will still happen and people will still die, but it should be at a much lower rate.
quote:
by the very nature of SDC, everything changes.
It will kind of be like Herd Immunity, once there are enough SDCs on the road accidents should only happen because of mechanical problems and hard to deal with environmental hazards, and of course the remaining human drivers being human.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 5:31 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
There are lots of problems with this discussion. "Who should the computer CHOOSE to kill?". This shouldn't even be part of the discussion. People drive into ditches and on coming traffic to avvoid collisions, it's our natural survival instinct kicking in, not the result of soul searching. Program it to make the choice a human would make, typically collision avoidance/minimization. That's it, no ethical dilemma because it made the same choice any reasonable human would make.
The SDCs will need to prove they are significantly better than us before we turn the keys over to them en masse, but I suspect they will be and when they do, accidents will still happen and people will still die, but it should be at a much lower rate.
Yeah we aren't going to program the AI to "Kill X, not Y." Will. Not. Happen.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 5:31 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Program it to make the choice a human would make, typically collision avoidance/minimization.
There are situations where a collision is unavoidable, and what maneuver to make in such a situation. That's the exact debate going on. You must've missed it.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 5:45 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:Program it to minimize impact, not to make calculations on lives to save.
There are situations where a collision is unavoidable, and what maneuver to make in such a situation. That's the exact debate going on. You must've missed it.
I asked previously, don't think it was answered. Will the car even be able to detect actual humans? Or is it just detecting movement/objects? If it can't detect humans, then this entire conversation seems pointless.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 5:56 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
There are situations where a collision is unavoidable, and what maneuver to make in such a situation. That's the exact debate going on. You must've missed it.
But a collision being "unavoidable" doesn't mean you are programming it to make a decision to hit someone. That's not how it has to work, it's not how humans work.
Humans would still swerve, still move, still attempt ANYTHING to not hit something. I would assume the AI could be programmed the same way. Program it to mitigate the situation, not to choose to kill x or y.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 6:00 pm to seawolf06
quote:
ust imagine if we had never allowed cars to be built because of the carriage manufacturer and horse stable jobs that were lost. I guess we shouldn't have cured polio either so that we could save the jobs of all the wheelchair makers.
Yeah, because we don't have 1000x more mechanic, gas station, jiffy lube, dealership, and other car-related jobs to offset carriage and stable jobs.
And we don't have 1000x more jobs for nurses to administer vaccine and for pharma to produce the vaccine, than the wheelchair makers.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 6:16 pm to shel311
Your automated transportation unit will not exceed the speed limit. It will likely be safer. The funny thing is that I bet half of the proponents of this are the same ones who go ape shite about slow left lane drivers. You are a proponent of a system that will not only choose your lane but will also regulate your speed. The days of being a reckless frick wad doing 20mph more than everyone else will be over. You will travel to your destination without any control accept inputting your destination. You mother fricking anxious and reckless sons of bitches are going to need to be medicated every time you go somewhere. LOL!
Posted on 12/29/16 at 6:26 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
Your automated transportation unit will not exceed the speed limit. It will likely be safer. The funny thing is that I bet half of the proponents of this are the same ones who go ape shite about slow left lane drivers. You are a proponent of a system that will not only choose your lane but will also regulate your speed. The days of being a reckless frick wad doing 20mph more than everyone else will be over. You will travel to your destination without any control accept inputting your destination. You mother fricking anxious and reckless sons of bitches are going to need to be medicated every time you go somewhere. LOL!
Again, your scope on this is too small.
There's a safe bet that traffic will be more easily controlled, ie less backups and bottlenecks, therefore greater efficiency for everyone, on top of the safety.
I'd also bet that this would either be a wash or a net gain in getting to places in a reasonable amount of time. I'd almost guarantee there's no chance we get somewhere slower than we do now.
Yes, some people speed to speed, but I would bet most speed due to their perception on time. Also, if I can get stuff done while driving, I have other time in other places of my day, less likely to feel rushed trying to get from place to place.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 6:29 pm to Dick Leverage
"Look honey. Did you see where Mickey got the new T20 unit. I saw it driving him to work yesterday. He looked beaten down and dejected. He used to be a hell of a baw grinding that 68 Camaro SS around with that modified 350. fricker used to have those 375 horses running wild! "
"Yeah, I kind of feel sorry for him. He used to own the streets of this town. Now he is just an emasculated rider in a little box. To bad the Government made it illegal to drive an old timey car except on private property. He needs to buy a farm so he can let them horses run again. Sad"
"Yeah, I kind of feel sorry for him. He used to own the streets of this town. Now he is just an emasculated rider in a little box. To bad the Government made it illegal to drive an old timey car except on private property. He needs to buy a farm so he can let them horses run again. Sad"
Posted on 12/29/16 at 6:35 pm to Freauxzen
Not my scope. I drive like a grandpa.
You are naive if you believe that most people speed because of "perception of time." They speed because they are reckless and get a sense of empowerment. It is an adrenaline rush that they can turn on/off anytime they want. It is a choice that they have control of. A lot of people just like to haul arse wherever they drive regardless of the reason they are driving to begin with. This will emasculate a bunch of men and they will be so pisses all the time that they will take up residency at Sonic....ready to fight anyone.
You are naive if you believe that most people speed because of "perception of time." They speed because they are reckless and get a sense of empowerment. It is an adrenaline rush that they can turn on/off anytime they want. It is a choice that they have control of. A lot of people just like to haul arse wherever they drive regardless of the reason they are driving to begin with. This will emasculate a bunch of men and they will be so pisses all the time that they will take up residency at Sonic....ready to fight anyone.
Posted on 12/29/16 at 7:08 pm to shel311
quote:
I asked previously, don't think it was answered. Will the car even be able to detect actual humans? Or is it just detecting movement/objects? If it can't detect humans, then this entire conversation seems pointless.
It's irrelevant really, it would be able to detect obstructions, will detect the size of the object, and will be able to tell whether the obstruction is stationary or moving. Whether it's a deer or a grizzly bear, or a person, the primary goal would be obstacle avoidance, the second would be mitigating damage from obstacle impact, by reducing speed and achieving safest impact angle. The car and it's programming doesn't really care what the object is, the goals are still the same.
I imagine a driverless car system as a fully integrated network where vehicles constantly scan the road, communicate with each other, and learn from all of the data collected. It would be easy enough for cars to constantly be scanning the highway and identifying areas that are safe to ditch out to avoid a collision vs. areas that aren't safe. And that information would be constantly updating and being shared with all driverless cars on that road, so if a car is broken down on the shoulder, that information is relayed to all vehicles behind it so their systems know about the potential obstacle. When that broken down vehicle moves, the cars are reporting that as well because it's no longer being picked up.
If cars are constantly picking up wildlife (deer most likely but a heat signal could identify a living thing vs. non-living) then that information will be relayed and archived, if there are consistently deer on a stretch of road from an hour before dusk until an hour after dawn, cars will learn to be prepared, and adjust speed so they have proper time to avoid a collision or stop. Cars will learn where schools are, what days and times to expect kids present, they'll learn busy downtown intersections, they'll learn potholes in the road and when they are fixed.
I think it's far more than, "what will the car decide in this hypothetical?"
Posted on 12/29/16 at 7:55 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
I imagine a driverless car system as a fully integrated network where vehicles constantly scan the road, communicate with each other, and learn from all of the data collected. It would be easy enough for cars to constantly be scanning the highway and identifying areas that are safe to ditch out to avoid a collision vs. areas that aren't safe. And that information would be constantly updating and being shared with all driverless cars on that road, so if a car is broken down on the shoulder, that information is relayed to all vehicles behind it so their systems know about the potential obstacle. When that broken down vehicle moves, the cars are reporting that as well because it's no longer being picked up.
If cars are constantly picking up wildlife (deer most likely but a heat signal could identify a living thing vs. non-living) then that information will be relayed and archived, if there are consistently deer on a stretch of road from an hour before dusk until an hour after dawn, cars will learn to be prepared, and adjust speed so they have proper time to avoid a collision or stop. Cars will learn where schools are, what days and times to expect kids present, they'll learn busy downtown intersections, they'll learn potholes in the road and when they are fixed.
I think it's far more than, "what will the car decide in this hypothetical?"
Exactly.
I mean, some in here may not use Waze, but you can know pretty much know every stationary road hazard miles in advance when on.
Think where that kind of technology is in 5-10 years and when you have a car that literally knows every potential hazard and probability of a hazard on the road at all times.
This post was edited on 12/29/16 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 12/29/16 at 8:41 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:Well, that's a whiff of a post.
Your automated transportation unit will not exceed the speed limit. It will likely be safer. The funny thing is that I bet half of the proponents of this are the same ones who go ape shite about slow left lane drivers. You are a proponent of a system that will not only choose your lane but will also regulate your speed. The days of being a reckless frick wad doing 20mph more than everyone else will be over. You will travel to your destination without any control accept inputting your destination. You mother fricking anxious and reckless sons of bitches are going to need to be medicated every time you go somewhere. LOL!
Posted on 12/29/16 at 8:43 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
"Look honey. Did you see where Mickey got the new T20 unit. I saw it driving him to work yesterday. He looked beaten down and dejected. He used to be a hell of a baw grinding that 68 Camaro SS around with that modified 350. fricker used to have those 375 horses running wild! "
"Yeah, I kind of feel sorry for him. He used to own the streets of this town. Now he is just an emasculated rider in a little box. To bad the Government made it illegal to drive an old timey car except on private property. He needs to buy a farm so he can let them horses run again. Sad"
"Look honey, that drunk driver that killed our 3 year old kid would never have done that if he was in one of those emasculating little boxes."
Nah, your way is much better!!!!
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News