Should your robot driver kill you to save a child’s life?

[jwall123]

I dont think the person in the street matters much. Could be anybody. The car is designed to be in the street. Especially since its sole purpose it to transport passengers safely. The car would not be doing its job if it didnt get the passenger home in one piece.

Accident or not, the kid has to pay for being in the street at the wrong time. Hopefully, the car would be able to stop in time to preserve all life. But, a kid in the street is a kid in the street, regardless of intent.

I like ot use this example: and of course, this is hypothetical...!

You get in a car accident. You say to the person whose car you hit "hey man, sorry! Didnt mean to hit your car." They say, "yeah man, it's cool! Things happen..." You cannot then continue on with your day as if you dont have to pay that man. You hit his car!

Intent does not make up for reality.

 

[Type Username Here]

its just not a very good thought experiment

Why not? There isn't any consensus here, just good debate and ideas. Seems to be serving its purpose

 

[Type Username Here]

I dont think the person in the street matters much. Could be anybody. The car is designed to be in the street. Especially since its sole purpose it to transport passengers safely. The car would not be doing its job if it didnt get the passenger home in one piece.

Accident or not, the kid has to pay for being in the street at the wrong time. Hopefully, the car would be able to stop in time to preserve all life. But, a kid in the street is a kid in the street, regardless of intent.

I like ot use this example: and of course, this is hypothetical...!

You get in a car accident. You say to the person whose car you hit "hey man, sorry! Didnt mean to hit your car." They say, "yeah man, it's cool! Things happen..." You cannot then continue on with your day as if you dont have to pay that man. You hit his car!

Intent does not make up for reality.

So if you were the programmer your algorithm would strike the person in the street?

 

[tmonster]

You have to worry about what other cars are going to do even when driving now. If there is no "usual protocol" then that is a problem and could result in more accidents since there is more variance. Accidents often happen now because drivers break usual protocol on the roads.

I don't mean in general

usual protocol is simply do what you can to protect the people inside the car

 

[tmonster]

People constantly miss the points about thought experiments in the coli. Its usually why I post them elsewhere.

It's about the thought process. How is it overthinking?

I don't think it's over-thinking it at all
I just think the driver should have the prerogative of choosing to live, the implication of the other options is to live your whole life trying to save everyone in jeopardy. there are other safeguards that are there to prevent the kid from being in the street but if all fails I don't think the driver should sacrifice himself to save the kid.

 

[Type Username Here]

I don't think it's over-thinking it at all
I just think the driver should have the prerogative of choosing to live, the implication of the other options is to live your whole life trying to save everyone in jeopardy. there are other safeguards that are there to prevent the kid from being in the street but if all fails I don't think the driver should sacrifice himself to save the kid.

Nothing wrong with your answer. You would program the car to strike the child (or man ,or woman or cat, or branch) correct?

 

[The Realist Perspective]

My program would resort to the preservation of the passengers.

And also, if you are having moral dilemmas over this then you are simply not the person to make such decisions. There are "heartless" and "cruel" people in this world, they are a "necessary evil" for a scenario such as this to make a purely logical decision without the handicap of emotion.

 

[tmonster]

Nothing wrong with your answer. You would program the car to strike the child (or man ,or woman or cat, or branch) correct?

IF the person or animal is on the road where they knowingly should not be and where the car should be and it can't be avoided and it's the only way to save the driver, yes.

consider that all someone would have to do is recreate the situation and they could assassinate the driver

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I don't mean in general

usual protocol is simply do what you can to protect the people inside the car

gotcha

 

[jwall123]

So if you were the programmer your algorithm would strike the person in the street?

I think it is a similar situation to being struck by something on rails (train, subway, etc.). You arent supposed to be there (on tracks, in the street). And, because you are where you arent supposed to be, there could be life threatening consequences. It is most definitely unfair to the individuals in the car (who did not expect to see someone in the street) to pay the ultimate penalty for another persons mistake, regardless of age.

To answer your question- If it cannot be avoided with a safe ending for the passengers, then yes.

With all this being said, when I drive, I try to be vigilant and avoid accidents of all sorts (Boston Driving is Hell). Sometimes these things cannot be avoided. But I do try!

 

[Serious]

the robot should do as the driver would have wanted
you can have the driver select a hierarchical/algorithmic set of rules to dictate action for these situations when buying the car

 

[Brown_Pride]

I would program the car to do what gives both parties the best chance of living. With that said, I have a hard time trying to grasp how the car would know it is a "child" rather than any other human. What if its a midget? What if the kid has a terminal illness? Do those make a difference?

Id err on the side of keeping the driver safe because otherwise there could be too many anomalies that cause crashes. What if the car misread a fallen tree branch as a human? Plus..honestly..who's to say someone's life is more or less valuable than another's life in that situation? If the adult is a young mother of 3 then does she deserve to die more than a random kid?

more importantly what if it's a racc00n? Car kills you for a fukin Racc00n?

have the car hit the breaks as best it can. Accidents happen now all the time.

 

[CJ]

more importantly what if it's a racc00n? Car kills you for a fukin Racc00n?

have the car hit the breaks as best it can. Accidents happen now all the time.

I was literally reading through the thread and about to post this verbatim. Exactly my concern re: how it even distinguishes from animals that may have a similar build to a child ie: racc00n. To think the car could possibly end my life into a wall over that is unsettling.

 

[Idaeo]

I say protect the car and it's occupants at all costs....

 

[rapbeats]

Roads are designed for vehicles. The car's job is to deliver the passenger to their destination safely. Any obstacles impeding the car from doing its job need to be avoided or mitigated. Machines need to worry about accomplishing their main objective only.

exactly. this so called kid that was walking across the street would have been seen by the car. how so? the roads we will drive on are touch sensitive(also solar). meaning if someone or something(deer) steps onto the road. our car knows about it. and can make adjustments accordingly. i have one better. the road is only so wide. so obviously someone could still come out of the wood works and just be on the road at the last moment. UNLESS. you push out the roads sensors another 30 feet on both sides of a road. This will insure your car has time to recognize a person in the 30 foot zone, then your car can start making adjustments(changing lanes, going much slower, etc.)

Now to play the game with the article. i could say lets add in that minority report mechanism where it could tell if said child was going to be the next hitler or martin luther king. If its the former then run that bad lil monster over and keep on pushing.