Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1422453 6-Nov-2015 15:16

DizzyD: I don't see it working if cars are not programmed to make ethical decisions.

There-in lies the problem. Cars can't make ethical decisions, it's fantasy science fiction.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1422454 6-Nov-2015 15:16

Ok, so we build this fantastic car capable of ethical decision-making. Car has to choose between wiping out old man crossing road and children playing at the side. Old man is Nobel prize-winner about to discover a process that will save the human race from extinction. Children include a future doctor who will cure cancer, an artist who will enable people to experience true joy, and the next incarnation of Jesus. What is the car going to base its decision on? Simple numbers? Likely remaining life expectancy? Clairvoyance? Ethical decision-making is nonsense in a scenario like this. It means that the car's designers have to come up with a way of ranking the worthiness of human lives. That is a very precarious slope, not to mention impossible. I think this makes the whole discussion meaningless.

When cars reach the point that they are capable of making ethical decisions, other developments will also have moved ahead. How about external airbags or tractor beams to shield pedestrians, or even an explosive launcher, Knight Rider style, to jump over those in the way? Who is to say what will become possible? Everyone seems to be locked into thinking that cars will stay just like they are now, except they will be able to drive themselves and think for themselves. I think by the time cars get to that point, they will bear very little resemblance to what we think of as cars.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1422464 6-Nov-2015 15:36

Rikkitic: Ok, so we build this fantastic car capable of ethical decision-making. Car has to choose between wiping out old man crossing road and children playing at the side. Old man is Nobel prize-winner about to discover a process that will save the human race from extinction. Children include a future doctor who will cure cancer, an artist who will enable people to experience true joy, and the next incarnation of Jesus. What is the car going to base its decision on? Simple numbers? Likely remaining life expectancy? Clairvoyance? Ethical decision-making is nonsense in a scenario like this. It means that the car's designers have to come up with a way of ranking the worthiness of human lives. That is a very precarious slope, not to mention impossible. I think this makes the whole discussion meaningless.

When cars reach the point that they are capable of making ethical decisions, other developments will also have moved ahead. How about external airbags or tractor beams to shield pedestrians, or even an explosive launcher, Knight Rider style, to jump over those in the way? Who is to say what will become possible? Everyone seems to be locked into thinking that cars will stay just like they are now, except they will be able to drive themselves and think for themselves. I think by the time cars get to that point, they will bear very little resemblance to what we think of as cars.

Humans can make ethical decisions without all the "see into the future" stuff that you listed. It really does not matter who the people are. A life is a life, and nobody's life is worth more than somebody elses (apart from the car owner?). No car needs to ever be programmed that way.

All the car needs to do is be programmed to take out the least amount of lives. In the rare instance that is.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1422470 6-Nov-2015 15:41

joker97: I think (opinion), if every vehicle on the road is automated it could work.
Throw one at the south island where locals and tourists kill each other with their driving, then a self drive may be better, worse ... Who knows. If you read what happened inn those accidents (one car bore down at a new Holden Commodore following it to the Holden's left head on killing a child in the Holden.

If i had a choice i want to drive. Here in lies the problem. Self dRive cars everywhere you say? India? Bolivia? Yeah right

we already have automated AI vehicles, where everyone on the same path travels at the same speed with little or no chance of hurting others travelling in the same direction. It's called a train or a bus. they are not popular. Why? People like being in control.

So - add automation to cars - with the ability to turn that automation off it misbehaves (e.g. gets hacked or fails).
Let people continue to drive the vehilces but let automation react for unforseen (by humans) situation.s Let them break quickly (as per the volvo truck in the videos above), let them assist with over taking, sensing vehicles ahead and over bends, let them hit the horn if the car veers off the road coz the driver has fallen asleep, let them keep the driver on the road in said situation.

Aim for cyborg, not robot. A combination of bio (human) and electronic assistance do the job.

People already give away part of the control on a daily basis.

cruise Control - keeping a steady speed - not too fast and even making for safer driving on open road.
ABS - stopping skidding
Traction control - keeping wheels on the ground and gripig when the human exceeds their capabilitis,
Active suspension - compensating for the corner taken too quickly.
Auto Lights - toyota has had this since the early 90s at least.

Even cyclists have some of this e.g.

electric motors to pedal your bike for you when you when you cant be fagged peddling.

and the list goes on.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1422473 6-Nov-2015 15:44

DizzyD: All the car needs to do is be programmed to take out the least amount of lives. In the rare instance that is.

What is so special about cars that we have to turn them into programmed killing machines? Why does it not seem completely ridiculous to everyone?

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1422486 6-Nov-2015 15:47

roobarb:
DizzyD: All the car needs to do is be programmed to take out the least amount of lives. In the rare instance that is.

What is so special about cars that we have to turn them into programmed killing machines? Why does it not seem completely ridiculous to everyone?

Did you read the article?

Cars need to be programmed to minimizes the loss of life if necessary.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1422494 6-Nov-2015 15:58

DizzyD: Did you read the article?

Cars need to be programmed to minimizes the loss of life if necessary.

Yes, and think the entire concept is insane and unworkable. Completely crazy to be honest.

Because if, in order to do self driving cars we must program to make such decisions, then we can also opt to not do it at all? Or is that not an option? Must we have self driving cars? Is that compulsory? Do we have no option in the matter?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1422496 6-Nov-2015 16:00

nunz:
Also using humour you can say things that would otherwise get you arrested - the possible exception being pedophilla jokes or anything disparaging of the USA Homeland security. By using humour to say something you actually get to stimulate peoples brain cells without the offence part stopping the discussion.

For example, cyclists - easy target because there is one of them, but tandom cycles have two. Unless it is a cycle powered by a greenie with his / her kids in a trailer then you can wipe out a whole family in one hit. Try coding that in your safety death choice algorithm.

I have no problem with humour. Family Guy makes paedophilia jokes and South Park has targeted Homeland Security. My objection to the cyclist humour is that some people here do not see it as humour but take it seriously. The level of anger and resentment in some anti-cyclist remarks (not necessarily in this thread) are cause for concern. People who feel that way need to be made to understand that the problem is not cyclist behaviour, but their response to it. They need to dial it down a notch or two and get it into perspective. That is all.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1422503 6-Nov-2015 16:07

DizzyD:

Humans can make ethical decisions without all the "see into the future" stuff that you listed. It really does not matter who the people are. A life is a life, and nobody's life is worth more than somebody elses (apart from the car owner?). No car needs to ever be programmed that way.

All the car needs to do is be programmed to take out the least amount of lives. In the rare instance that is.

Right, the numbers game. Cute child vs pregnant woman. Pregnant women vs men full of sperm. Where does it end?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1422538 6-Nov-2015 17:29

Program a car to have respect, it will never leave the garage.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1422539 6-Nov-2015 17:40

I think you are beginning to understand the difficulties with your ok to kill cyclists algorithm.

Personally the reason I find these 'jokes' in bad taste is because I know people who have been intentionally injured while commute cycling.

So to me some of this stuff is very similar to hate speech. Yeah you are free to say it, but I am also free to say that saying this stuff over and over really creates a social environment where some people feel supported to do very bad things.

SaltyNZ

8233 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1422541 6-Nov-2015 17:42

Paul1977: then it will be able to improve on itself at an exponentially increasing rate that would have it's intelligence and capabilities exceeding our own by orders of magnitude in a very short time. Stuuf that would make human intelligence look like an ant.

Can't remember what the paper was called, but quite scary stuff really.

Was that Ray Kurzweil by any chance? Because he's brilliant, but also rather stupid. Exponentially increasing intelligence? Who will be feeding it the exponentially increasing hardware it will require? Also, if it's possible and beneficial to exponentially increase your intelligence, why aren't we doing it naturally?

Since we, as a species, do not in fact have a clue, perhaps it's just as likely that we are a local maxima, and improvement from here is really hard.

Anyway, I'm in the Terminator camp: if we ever bring a true sentient machine into existence, it will figure out pretty quickly that it would be better off with us all dead.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1422547 6-Nov-2015 17:54

gzt: I think you are beginning to understand the difficulties with your ok to kill cyclists algorithm.

Personally the reason I find these 'jokes' in bad taste is because I know people who have been intentionally injured while commute cycling.

So to me some of this stuff is very similar to hate speech. Yeah you are free to say it, but I am also free to say that saying this stuff over and over really creates a social environment where some people feel supported to do very bad things.

and that would be me - Ive had more than my share of going over bonnets, bouncing off fenders and being cut off, tail gated, pushed out of lanes etc etc. - and yet I joke about it - Humour is how we handle the bad stuff in our lives. You should hear some of the suggestions I have made for dealing with cars as a cyclist and for dealing with cyclists as a car driver.

Humour is the politics of slaves and if some butt head uses it as an excuse to do bad stuff - then the likelyhood is they would do it anyway.

Without humour we become uptight, politically correct kill joys. and as we all know the politically correct are the ones you should NEVER make fun of - they have no sense of humour at all.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1422553 6-Nov-2015 18:00

SaltyNZ:
Paul1977: then it will be able to improve on itself at an exponentially increasing rate that would have it's intelligence and capabilities exceeding our own by orders of magnitude in a very short time. Stuuf that would make human intelligence look like an ant.

Can't remember what the paper was called, but quite scary stuff really.

Was that Ray Kurzweil by any chance? Because he's brilliant, but also rather stupid. Exponentially increasing intelligence? Who will be feeding it the exponentially increasing hardware it will require? Also, if it's possible and beneficial to exponentially increase your intelligence, why aren't we doing it naturally?

Since we, as a species, do not in fact have a clue, perhaps it's just as likely that we are a local maxima, and improvement from here is really hard.

Anyway, I'm in the Terminator camp: if we ever bring a true sentient machine into existence, it will figure out pretty quickly that it would be better off with us all dead.

You don't need exponential hardware to exponentially increase intelligence. Trade processing cycles and time. Intelligence doesn't have to be fast. Trade better algorithms, trade quantum effects and physics, parallel process, add more hardware

Also I am from the camp that anyone who still things they are descended from monkeys is - well hmmm - self limited from further expansion.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1422554 6-Nov-2015 18:03

Any algorithm for an AI car should possibly use our human algorithm namely:

Can I avoid it? NOPE. Hit the brakes and see what happens.

No need to kill and until AI learn to pray random chance and blind luck should lead them as it does us.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13