Self-driving cars - Ethical dilemma

CruelCoin

Morning all,

Has there been any serious debate on the ethics of self-driving cars?

Just say that you were bumbling along, heavy traffic on your right (turn that way you die and so do others), 4 pedestrians on your left (turn that way you live but they die), and there is a truck barrelling towards you on the wrong side of the road.

What does the car do?

Will it sacrifice you to save the 4 pedestrians, or will it try save itself and its owner by moving them down?

What does it do? What should it do?

If the car decides to sacrifice you in the face of greater numbers of pedestrians, how does it judge the numbers?

Personally, i'd want the car to save me, but with certain caveats. i'm 29. I'd want the car to save me rather than 4 pensioners at age 80. I'm not so sure i'd want the car to save me if there were 2 mothers with babies.

I'd want the car to save me if it were a bunch of knackers on their way to a good 'ol riotin'. Not so if there was a group of young professionals. Again, how does a car judge the worth of a person? Should it?

Your thoughts?

One eyed Jack

Turbo-boost over the lorry.

Problem, solved.

Señor Fancy Pants

My thoughts are Id rather drive it myself. No Total Recall or Demolition Man cars for this pig!

Plus, if the car becomes racist it might have select targeting, which would be baaaad mkay.

CruelCoin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Turbo-boost over the lorry.

Problem, solved.

My borther did mention ejector seats to me.

I can picture it now, yanked out of the car while trying to drink my martini...:mad:

Sarn

You have to consider the fact that your car will have various safety features in place that will reduce the risk of fatality to the driver versus the near certainty of killing the pedestrians.

Personally I would have invested in the flight feature and thus would fly over the impending carnage.

who the fug

We will end up with very intelligent cars who realise that roads be dangerous, so will refuse to leave the driveway.

wendell borton

They should obey Asimov's laws.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

One eyed Jack

CruelCoin wrote: »

My borther did mention ejector seats to me.

I can picture it now, yanked out of the car while trying to drink my martini...:mad:

And with ejector seats, you wanna make sure the sun roof is open first!

s15r330

When self driving technology becomes readily available some of the first users will be hauliers (no more driver wages, restricted driving due to tiredness). So the lorry will be on the right side.
At some stage in the future all cars will have it, so these situations shouldn't arise. Sorted.

The Backwards Man

It won't know they are pedestrians, it's a car not Metal Mickey.

They also don't work in the rain, can't avoid potholes and can't navigate when google maps aren't 100% accurate, so I don't think this is an ethical dilemma that will come up in Ireland any time soon.

CruelCoin

s15r330 wrote: »

When self driving technology becomes readily available some of the first users will be hauliers (no more driver wages, restricted driving due to tiredness). So the lorry will be on the right side.
At some stage in the future all cars will have it, so these situations shouldn't arise. Sorted.

It's all well and good forcing everyone to go from analog to digital (tv's) but i can imagine the outcry when people are forced en-mass to switch from self-drive to driverless.

People balk at 150 for water. Can you imagine 20k?

Spunge

who the fug wrote: »

We will end up with very intelligent cars who realise that roads be dangerous, so will refuse to leave the driveway.

didnt this happen in an unreal tournament server? the bots on the server learnt over several years of playing the safest thing to do was to not move at all, so they were all just standing still. thats what i heard anyway

CruelCoin

Spunge wrote: »

didnt this happen in an unreal tournament server? the bots on the server learnt over several years of playing the safest thing to do was to not move at all, so they were all just standing still. thats what i heard anyway

The story gained ground for a bit, was was shown to be a hoax in the end.

Interesting idea all the same.

Banjo String

I have a self driving car, though I didn't even know it was a self driving car when I bought it.

I only realised it was a self driving motor yesterday morning when I woke up to see it parked out the back of my house.

We were in the pub all day Saturday, and late into Saturday night, I must have had 10 beer, and a fair few whisky chasers, and was definitely in no fit shape to be driving.

Anyway, woke up yesterday, and realised that not only did the car manage to get itself back from the pub in one piece, but also seems to have had chips from Borzas, and it even managed to put the keys in the kitchen press where they belong.

There's a bit of a tree hanging off one side mirror, and she's parked at a fairly awkward angle, but other than that, solid enough effort.

Definitely 8/10 from me.

kneemos

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It won't know they are pedestrians, it's a car not Metal Mickey.

They also don't work in the rain, can't avoid potholes and can't navigate when google maps aren't 100% accurate, so I don't think this is an ethical dilemma that will come up in Ireland any time soon.

Totally useless then.

Panda_Turtle

I doubt the reflexes and instincts of a human can be replicated in all scenarios but overall it would probably be beneficial.

shruikan2553

It is currently an area of research, when should the car hit an animal or when should it stop is another one. Then if the car chooses an action that harms someone can the makers be sued or is the driver responsible?

Another thing would be all the cars are aware of their surroundings and the surroundings of nearby cars so they can all plan with each other in what to do.

kneemos

Who's responsible then if it avoids the truck and wipes out three pensioners?
Or if it goes berserk and slams itself and it's over trusting driver into a wall?

GaryTLynch

Maybe there'll be an override option where manual control can be returned to the driver/passenger in 'does not compute' situations?

IsaacWunder

They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting in for. I say let them crash.

shruikan2553

GaryTLynch wrote: »

Maybe there'll be an override option where manual control can be returned to the driver/passenger in 'does not compute' situations?

There is but you need to make sure that the person "driving" is paying attention. Dont want to be going down the motorway reading a book as the car decides "**** this ****, its your problem now"

pablo128

Banjo String wrote: »

I have a self driving car, though I didn't even know it was a self driving car when I bought it.

I only realised it was a self driving motor yesterday morning when I woke up to see it parked out the back of my house.

We were in the pub all day Saturday, and late into Saturday night, I must have had 10 beer, and a fair few whisky chasers, and was definitely in no fit shape to be driving.

Anyway, woke up yesterday, and realised that not only did the car manage to get itself back from the pub in one piece, but also seems to have had chips from Borzas, and it even managed to put the keys in the kitchen press where they belong.

There's a bit of a tree hanging off one side mirror, and she's parked at a fairly awkward angle, but other than that, solid enough effort.

Definitely 8/10 from me.

I had a Fiat 127 like that years ago. Mine had a knock on the rear bumper the next day. 7/10 unfortunately.:pac:

GaryTLynch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

There is but you need to make sure that the person "driving" is paying attention. Dont want to be going down the motorway reading a book as the car decides "**** this ****, its your problem now"

Ha ha, good point.

kneemos

I'd imagine it would be similar to today if a part failed on your car and killed a pedestrian,it's down to plain bad luck.

Don't think there's an ethical question,the car is just mechanical after all.

CruelCoin

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It is currently an area of research, when should the car hit an animal or when should it stop is another one. Then if the car chooses an action that harms someone can the makers be sued or is the driver responsible?

Another thing would be all the cars are aware of their surroundings and the surroundings of nearby cars so they can all plan with each other in what to do.

Anything rabbit sized and down is fair game in my mind.

After that, wipe out the pensioners.

(I realise how horrible that sounded the moment i typed it....)

CruelCoin

kneemos wrote: »

I'd imagine it would be similar to today if a part failed on your car and killed a pedestrian,it's down to plain bad luck.

Don't think there's an ethical question,the car is just mechanical after all.

But nothing is failing.

There is a truck coming. There are three options that i laid out. Go left, straight, right. Two of these options kill you. Two of themk kill others.

There's nothing mechanical about it. A decision needs to be made in the programming phase.

martinedwards

Whattaya know, he OP watches top gear.

Clarkson had this exact question on one of the last episodes.......

Desolation Of Smug

martinedwards wrote: »

Whattaya know, he OP watches top gear.

Clarkson had this exact question on one of the last episodes.......

He'd deffo vote for hitting the producer, sorry, pensioners. He could apologize afterwards and divide public opinion.

DoYouEvenLift

If all vehicles involved were automated I'm sure they'd all be able to communicate with one another and all take part in the best option for the situation. Stuff like this is interesting though because as automated cars phase into our daily lives, like anything, the early adapters will probably have to go through some trial and error before all issues are sorted and we can drive around completely accident free. Chances are the roads would also need some kind of technology built into them as well to help the cars be as safe and effective as possible.

the groutch

s15r330 wrote: »

When self driving technology becomes readily available some of the first users will be hauliers (no more driver wages, restricted driving due to tiredness).

Looks like we got us a 10-38, outsider blabbing about the Navitron auto-drive system.

cros13

CruelCoin wrote: »

Personally, i'd want the car to save me, but with certain caveats. i'm 29. I'd want the car to save me rather than 4 pensioners at age 80. I'm not so sure i'd want the car to save me if there were 2 mothers with babies.

You are overcomplicating it. The correct response from the car in this situation is to stay where it is and prep the airbags. Which is exactly what the current autonomous test cars do.

It's such an edge case that coding for that situation would result in:

1. lawsuits
2. possible criminal charges
3. unwanted behaviour in other situations

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It won't know they are pedestrians, it's a car not Metal Mickey.

I'm afraid you are behind the times. Google's test cars from 2 years ago can even identify pedestrians and cyclists hand signals and probable intentions (based on past movements, location, position of other traffic and probable sight lines).

The Backwards Man wrote: »

They also don't work in the rain, can't avoid potholes and can't navigate when google maps aren't 100% accurate, so I don't think this is an ethical dilemma that will come up in Ireland any time soon.

Yes they do work in the rain. While google's cars currently don't scan ahead for road imperfections, Audi's autonomous vehicles do. And maps are not necessarily required, The DARPA grand challenge featured vehicles figuring their way from point A to point B 150km away ten years ago.

It's 2015, My car drives the M50 regularly without me steering or controlling speed.
The rental car I had last weekend does 160km/h on the autobahn steering itself.

Nissan is due to have a commercial autonomous vehicle FOR SALE in Ireland in the next four years.
The UN Road Traffic treaties are being amended this year to account for autonomous vehicles.
Tesla's Model S (of which there are five already in Ireland) is getting Autopilot in a software update later this year,
including automatic lane changes on the motorway and a meet-me function where the car will bring itself out of the garage and meet you at the front door.

The test fully autonomous vehicles on the road are already far safer than the average human driver. Google's cars are now up to almost three million km on the public road, no accidents (except when humans took control).

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

I'd imagine it would be similar to today if a part failed on your car and killed a pedestrian,it's down to plain bad luck.

Don't think there's an ethical question,the car is just mechanical after all.

The ethical isues arise from the fact that someone needs to decide in advance what choice the computer will make in a situation where a crash is unavoidable but there are different scenarios resulting in different outcomes for the passengers of the car, and third parties

The computer algorithm should first do everything it can do to avoid any collision
If this fails, it should do everything it can do to protect the passengers of the car. (this almost always means slowing down as much as possible and preparing the safety features of the car (seatbelt tensioners, airbags, extending headrests etc) and the act of slowing the car down would by default reduce the risk to third parties.

In terms of this ethical dylemma, it's not a convincing argument against autonomous vehicles. Firstly, the self driving car isn't the cause of this hypothetical accident, it's almost certainly a human error. Secondly, a human in the same situation would panic and veer the car away from the oncoming vehicle. The human won't be making a conscious choice to select which people to hit. There may be a sub-conscious decision to decide which direction to swerve, but if the human had time to ponder the situation and decide to save the kids and kill the elderly, then he/she certainly had time to take corrective action to avoid the accident.

Dravokivich

cros13 wrote: »

The test fully autonomous vehicles on the road are already far safer than the average human driver. Google's cars are now up to almost three million km on the public road, no accidents (except when humans took control).

I could have sworn I heard the issue was they were crashed into by others. Not that the people in them caused the accidents.

Annasopra

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It won't know they are pedestrians, it's a car not Metal Mickey.

They also don't work in the rain, can't avoid potholes and can't navigate when google maps aren't 100% accurate, so I don't think this is an ethical dilemma that will come up in Ireland any time soon.

Course it will. We are talking about something in 50 years and the technology will be able to detect people, wirk through rain, avoid potholes and use google maps

CruelCoin

martinedwards wrote: »

Whattaya know, he OP watches top gear.

Clarkson had this exact question on one of the last episodes.......

Did he? Can't remember.

Is it relevant what i watch on tv? Does my watching a clarckson tv show my argument any less valid? No. Then why bring it up?

CruelCoin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

If all vehicles involved were automated I'm sure they'd all be able to communicate with one another and all take part in the best option for the situation. Stuff like this is interesting though because as automated cars phase into our daily lives, like anything, the early adapters will probably have to go through some trial and error before all issues are sorted and we can drive around completely accident free. Chances are the roads would also need some kind of technology built into them as well to help the cars be as safe and effective as possible.

That's the big issue. People saying it won't be an issue are the ones saying it would be a universal adoption and therefore a non-issue.

You cannot force a car purchase on every household simultaneously.

CruelCoin

Akrasia wrote: »

In terms of this ethical dylemma, it's not a convincing argument against autonomous vehicles. Firstly, the self driving car isn't the cause of this hypothetical accident, it's almost certainly a human error.

Human error is the truck driver.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti self driving cars at all. But these questions need to be answered.

Let me change the parameters a little: 4 people in the self-driving car, and only 1 pedestrian. Would the car sacrifice 4 to save 1? Or will it mow down 1?

If preservation of the largest amount of life is the goal, then logically the car should mow dow the single pedestrian to save the 4 passengers, no?

Or should the entire argument just be done away with a caveat along the lines of "Be warned: entering this self-driving vehicle may carry unforseen risks etc etc." ?

josip

cros13 wrote: »

It's 2015, My car drives the M50 regularly without me steering or controlling speed.

So does my wife, but I still can't bring myself to relax fully in the passenger seat.
That's a me problem, my wife has never crashed on the M50.

cros13

Dravokivich wrote: »

I could have sworn I heard the issue was they were crashed into by others. Not that the people in them caused the accidents.

It was. In both cases. And both google vehicles just happened to be under human control at the time as well.

The idea that autonomous vehicle need to make hard ethical choices is a bit mad TBH.

They just need to be better than humans.

And humans....

....make poor decisions... particularly at speed or in an incident
....drive tired
....drive drunk or otherwise impaired
....are often poorly trained
....lose concentration
....have severely limited vision and hearing

CruelCoin

cros13 wrote: »

They just need to be better than humans.

And humans....

....make poor decisions... particularly at speed or in an incident
....drive tired
....drive drunk or otherwise impaired
....are often poorly trained
....lose concentration
....have severely limited vision and hearing

True, but you are ignoring my scenario.

Unavoidable human driven truck coming at you head on. What does the car do? Saying the car is better than a human is redundant when you have 3 simple choices. Left, right, straight. Which one?

cros13

CruelCoin wrote: »

True, but you are ignoring my scenario.

Unavoidable human driven truck coming at you head on. What does the car do? Saying the car is better than a human is redundant when you have 3 simple choices. Left, right, straight. Which one?

It's not a hypothetical. There's a fourth option, and that is to stay where it is or reduce the impact speed as much as possible and prepare the vehicle for a crash. That's the option currently taken by every autonomous vehicle. The only future addition I can see is moving the vehicle slightly that the impact is made at the optimum angle to maximise the use of crumple zones and the structure of the vehicle.

The occupants are less lightly to suffer injury when the seat belts are pre-tensioned and airbag primed.

We don't need the vehicle to run actuarial tables and "choose" to run over pedestrians. And implementing such a system would be stupid, because any such system would by its very nature be prone to activating in inappropriate situations.

Dravokivich

cros13 wrote: »

It's not a hypothetical. There's a fourth option, and that is to stay where it is or reduce the impact speed as much as possible and prepare the vehicle for a crash. That's the option currently taken by every autonomous vehicle. The only future addition I can see is moving the vehicle slightly that the impact is made at the optimum angle to maximise the use of crumple zones and the structure of the vehicle.

The occupants are less lightly to suffer injury when the seat belts are pre-tensioned and airbag primed.

I've been thinking about this since the thread came up, wouldn't there be an even greater impact against the car due to the lower momentum from it if the speed was to be reduced? Compared to if the speed of the car was maintained, or indeed increased. As the main factor, would be relative to the force/momentum of the truck?

Not that I'd recommend driving a car into a truck. Its just it seems to me it'd get hit harder if it was to slow down/stop.

josip

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've been thinking about this since the thread came up, wouldn't there be an even greater impact against the car due to the lower momentum from it if the speed was to be reduced? Compared to if the speed of the car was maintained, or indeed increased. As the main factor, would be relative to the force/momentum of the truck?

Not that I'd recommend driving a car into a truck. Its just it seems to me it'd get hit harder if it was to slow down/stop.

That would be valid in the case of 2 solid objects that didn't deform on impact.
The g forces resulting from a sudden massive deceleration would be a lot worse for living things than the g forces resulting from a less massive acceleration in the opposite direction if you managed to reduce speed.

diomed

If we have self-driving cars that never have an accident do we pay €0 motor insurance?

shruikan2553

diomed wrote: »

If we have self-driving cars that never have an accident do we pay €0 motor insurance?

Probably not. Even when cars are fully automated they can still be damaged by nature or accidents when parked.

Capt'n Midnight

wendell borton wrote: »

They should obey Asimov's laws.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Except that's science fantasy.

Also the robots extrapolated the laws and turns out that keeping us caged up would be the best way of keeping us safe.

bb1234567

I don't think we should ever place value on one humans life over another based on our societies perception of what makes a human life important, such as being a professional. Spending more years In college doesn't mean you get any more right to life than a knacker or a pothead.