|
|
|
|
|
by krapp
4336 days ago
|
|
Autonomous cars are supposed to be more intelligent, and capable of making better decisions than a human driver, based on access to more information and having more accurate controls. The entire argument about autonomous cars improving safety is predicated on the assumption that human drivers, in general, are simply not capable of driving safely. You being able to make a decision about the way your autonomous vehicle behaves which could result in a greater risk to other drivers is no different than the risk you present anyway just by having access to a steering wheel, and making the equivalent decision directly. Changing the radio isn't going to kill anybody, but letting you decide the ethics of your car just might. What happens when two cars with conflicting driver-set ethical subroutines come into contact? Do they debate? It doesn't work unless there's a single standard. |
|
I'm not saying we should be able to rewrite the code. But a single user option like "Should I sacrifice your life to save another? [Yes/No]" just means the decision tree has another branch point that still leads to the same set of possible actions. It can still make better decisions about driving than the human driver because it still has the access to more information and more accurate controls. Deciding to crash me into a tunnel wall to save a child is not really about "driving safely."