Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday October 31 2016, @06:16PM   Printer-friendly
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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Monday October 31 2016, @07:17PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 31 2016, @07:17PM (#420995) Journal

    So I decided I'd pretend to be a particularly uninformed deontologist and prescribe that the car would always swerve to the other lane regardless because "you should always avoid your current mistake".

    Their test came to several "interesting" conclusions about my morality: I 100% love youth and hate the elderly, I like women 50% more than men, and I always 100% prefer to save as many lives as possible.

    Given my creedo, there's no way systemic bias could have factored into my choices, which tells me their sample sizes suck, and their conclusions are faulty.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @07:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @07:46PM (#421022)

    But its MIT, everything that comes out of there is pure gold!

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 31 2016, @08:38PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 31 2016, @08:38PM (#421039)

      Yep, pure 24 carat gold, a few microns, over the nickel covering the 1oz copper. Don't forget the solder mask, and optional conformal coating.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @09:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @09:35PM (#421057)

    So I decided I'd pretend to be a particularly uninformed deontologist and prescribe that the car would always swerve to the other lane regardless because "you should always avoid your current mistake".

    Their test came to several "interesting" conclusions about my morality: I 100% love youth and hate the elderly, I like women 50% more than men, and I always 100% prefer to save as many lives as possible.

    Given my creedo, there's no way systemic bias could have factored into my choices, which tells me their sample sizes suck, and their conclusions are faulty.

    I notice that you avoided mentioning that you 100% prefer to take action rather than not take action, which happens to be true and undermines the underlying message you are trying to convey that the survey is useless and MIT is stupid.

    Putting that aside, though, you are correct that one person taking a 10 question survey is not an appropriate sample size. However, if thousands of people are taking it, possibly multiple times, then the sample size becomes much more credible. Moreover, any non-systematic biases should clear themselves out as more people do more surveys, because that's the nature of random numbers and statistics.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 01 2016, @04:41AM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 01 2016, @04:41AM (#421127) Journal

      I wasn't proclaiming it to be useless and stupid, just that with a relatively simple rule, they derived some completely incorrect conclusions about my thoughts.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 31 2016, @09:46PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday October 31 2016, @09:46PM (#421062) Homepage
    Apparently I 100% hate fit women! I didn't even pay attention to gender or fitness at all because I could barely even tell the gender or fitness with my tired eyes.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday October 31 2016, @09:52PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday October 31 2016, @09:52PM (#421068) Journal

    Yeah, the test doesn't seem well designed at all.

    I answered the first two scenarios seriously, but I thought graphics were so silly, I just decided to plow down whoever was in my way and see what the test said. (Well, I think I swerved to hit the bank robbers rather than the kids or something.)

    Apparently my completely irrational "stay in your lane" approach caused me to value "saving the most lives" more than the average person, according to the test's conclusions. Weird.