SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Monday October 31 2016, @06:16PM
from the explosions-killing-everybody-isn't-a-choice dept.
from the explosions-killing-everybody-isn't-a-choice dept.
Researchers at MIT have put together a pictorial survey http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ -- if the self-driving car loses its brakes, should it go straight or turn? Various scenarios are presented with either occupants or pedestrians dying, and there are a variety of peds in the road from strollers to thieves, even pets.
This AC found that I quickly began to develop my own simplistic criteria and the decisions got easier the further I went in the survey.
While the survey is very much idealized, it may have just enough complexity to give some useful results?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will.
(Score: 3, Funny) by dyingtolive on Monday October 31 2016, @07:15PM
I found that I prioritized the passengers whenever possible. When I couldn't do that, I prioritized the people who were crossing at the right time. When I couldn't do that, I went for the most lives saved.
While the first might make me a bad person, I feel like that's (for better or worse) how most people would tend to drive already, so I feel like it gives the least regressive outcome to what is likely an impossible situation to solve. A large amount of it is generally rhetorical anyway, because I don't think a car could ever distinguish the difference between a doctor, criminal, or athlete simply walking down the road.
Also, I'm waiting for the btards to flood this thing and poison it toward saving all the animals at any cost.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @08:51PM
> I prioritized the passengers whenever possible. When I couldn't do that, I prioritized the people who were crossing at the right time. When I couldn't do that, I went for the most lives saved.
That is about what I wound up doing. I added one other rule, stay in my lane, don't swerve, unless it is really clear that swerving will save people (not pets).
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday November 01 2016, @05:39AM
I may have skewed my results slightly. I assigned negative value to executives when deciding which option, but all the executives in my scenarios were male. (bit of a sexist assumption there, hey)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday November 01 2016, @02:44PM
Oh yeah. I didn't even cover that part. Mine said that I had a bias for hitting men. Given the three rules I played by, I'd argue that they had a bias for putting men in the wrong lane.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2016, @07:39AM
I found that I prioritized the passengers whenever possible.
I found that I prioritized the fuckable women. Because I like fucking women. And more fuckable women means more fucking fuckable women.
And while I may well get downmodded for this, that was, in fact, the strategy I used when taking the test.