|
|
|
|
|
|
by dllthomas
3629 days ago
|
|
|
> Those computers probably won't get into situation like this in the first place, being able to stop or react preventive. It will always be the case that circumstances can change faster than something with the momentum of a fast moving car could adapt. Somewhere between "you're boned" and "your car saves the day" lies room for a scenario such as this, with potential room for a large amount of thinking. > Anyway, it will be so rare an occasion with no guaranteed outcome (it's all about probabilities), so it's not really matters as much as it's discussed. I agree that it will be rare, and that the concern is overblown. That said, "it's all about probabilities" is no reason something can't be vitally important. > With same kinda of attention you could ask if making and selling ladders is ethical, because people fall from them and hurt themselves. I think there is a substantive difference between the two. We're not asking whether selling a car that has a chance of injuring the user is ethical - we're fine with that. We're not even asking whether selling a car that has a chance of hurting others is ethical (already meaningfully different than the ladder case). We're asking about the ethical ramifications of making particular tradeoffs in "chance to hurt the user" versus "chance to hurt others". It's an interesting question, so it gets a lot of attention. I don't think most of those involved see it as a reason to prevent self-driving cars - long before the dilemma is really relevant, self-driving cars are already safer than human driven. |
|
|
I think it's possible that with improving AI of self driving cars, making overall safety better, there will be ≈0 occasions when car simultaneously 1) doesn't have time to react to some sudden problem and 2) has time to make informed decision (and physically perform it) on how many people to save. Especially if pedestrian airbags become popular.