SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Should a self-driving car kill the baby or the grandma? Depends on where you're from.:
In 2014 researchers at the MIT Media Lab designed an experiment called Moral Machine. The idea was to create a game-like platform that would crowdsource people's decisions on how self-driving cars should prioritize lives in different variations of the "trolley problem." In the process, the data generated would provide insight into the collective ethical priorities of different cultures.
The researchers never predicted the experiment's viral reception. Four years after the platform went live, millions of people in 233 countries and territories have logged 40 million decisions, making it one of the largest studies ever done on global moral preferences.
A new paper published in Nature presents the analysis of that data and reveals how much cross-cultural ethics diverge on the basis of culture, economics, and geographic location.
[...] Awad hopes the results will also help technologists think more deeply about the ethics of AI beyond self-driving cars. "We used the trolley problem because it's a very good way to collect this data, but we hope the discussion of ethics don't stay within that theme," he said. "The discussion should move to risk analysis—about who is at more risk or less risk—instead of saying who's going to die or not, and also about how bias is happening." How these results could translate into the more ethical design and regulation of AI is something he hopes to study more in the future.
"In the last two, three years more people have started talking about the ethics of AI," Awad said. "More people have started becoming aware that AI could have different ethical consequences on different groups of people. The fact that we see people engaged with this—I think that that's something promising."
Journal Reference:
Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, et al. The Moral Machine experiment, Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6)
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:40AM (35 children)
Here in the real world, we have this scenario:
the car slips on black ice going downhill and cannot stop. you can go straight and hit the stroller, go slightly (because you're on ice) right and hit the wife, or go left and hit the husband. these are your outcomes. decide.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:50AM (5 children)
Unless it's a really wide stoller or a really wide wife I'd have thought most cars are big enough to just take out all three for maximum points, so it's a no brainer...
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 28 2021, @03:07PM (4 children)
I'd take out the pregnant nun with the MAGA hat and little dog, that's... let's see, ten plus fifteen, double for the pregnancy, five for the dog... that's nearly a game-winner in one hit.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:13PM (2 children)
Ten points for a razor scooter; double if it's not a kid.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:24PM (1 child)
I think it's the other way round, there's a bonus if you can find and hit someone not on a Razor, Lime, Wave, Bird, or whatever.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Friday January 29 2021, @03:16AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmNP3T-rx4U [youtube.com]
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @03:27AM
.
In Yakima, WA the dog would also be pregnant. How many points would it be worth then?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday January 28 2021, @10:53AM (8 children)
Jump out of the car and shout to them. Then it will be a matter of luck who gets hit and who doesn't. (grin)
Seriously speaking, making them aware of the danger is probably the most important thing that you should do first if you don't have control of the car. If they have time to react, they may decide to sacrifice themselves and save the stroller/baby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:05AM (5 children)
Seriously speaking, that's not the way ice works. You're coming to a stop at a light just turned yellow, assholes see you're stopping and start crossing on that yellow, and then 10 feet before the light you hit ice. you have about half a second to make the car go about 2 feet left or right, and after the other half of that second, you're plowing into someone. Have you seriously never driven and hit a patch of ice in the middle of trying to stop?
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday January 28 2021, @12:24PM
Seriously speaking, that's not how AI works either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 28 2021, @03:22PM (1 child)
It's currently just under forty degrees (I dunno, about 105F) outside, the only time I'd hit ice is if the pregnant nun I was aiming for (see this post [soylentnews.org] was carrying an iced coffee when I hit her.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Thursday January 28 2021, @07:04PM
well, i'm glad sandniggers are the target market for self driving cars then. problem solved.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday January 28 2021, @07:04PM (1 child)
In that case it's the “assholes'” fault anyway (scare quotes because those are not assholes — well, at least not necessarily — but morons). But then, where on earth do people behave this way?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @08:22PM
Ann Arbor, Michigan. A progressive, pedestrian-friendly place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:59AM (1 child)
Uhm ... can the self driving car honk the horn when appropriate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @12:01PM
(I should have included the adverb automatically before the word honk and after the word car).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @11:03AM (13 children)
Driverless cars only need to do one thing to save more lives than human drivers. Slow down. If they can react faster than a human driver, more collisions will be avoided or become less lethal.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @12:04PM (5 children)
Especially in inclement conditions where there is a high probability of pedestrians being present.
But if self driving cars always followed speed limits then how would government be able to give speeding tickets? They won't! Lost Revenue!! THE HORRORS!!!!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @12:07PM (4 children)
and think about it. No one would have to go to driving school anymore and so driving schools would lose money. No, we can't let this happen! Government must protect jobs!!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 28 2021, @05:26PM (2 children)
Driving schools don't employ very many people, and they're not public servants, so no one cares about them.
However, driverless cars threaten the jobs of countless police officers, who "put their lives on the line every day" to protect us by giving us speeding tickets, and we just can't have this. I honestly don't know how governments are going to handle driverless cars because of this factor. If the cars are all driverless, how are the police supposed to pull over random black people and give them bogus tickets, or use it as an excuse to shoot them if they reach for their wallet to get their ID?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @02:07AM
That's easy, just post a speed limit sign with a background pattern the that makes the car misread it but looks normal to humans, then come screaming in lights and sirens blazing. When the self driving car fails to stop (because your 'I'm a cop' transponder was mysteriously 'malfunctioning'), run it off the road and shoot the passengers. Because they are obviously terrorists. Just keeping the people safe, ya know.
I really wish I was joking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @06:46AM
Funny thing happened to a local council here. They got most of their revenue from parking fines. Kept ramping up the fines, making the timing restrictions weirder and employing more arseholes to wander round handing out tickets. Then they hit some some sort of tipping point - the more careful most people were, the more likely violators were to get fined. If you violated a parking law you would get fined, and the fines were large enough to deter almost everyone. Overnight, revenue dropped to practically zero and nearly bankrupted them.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 28 2021, @06:12PM
Classes on driving can be replaced by classes on gender studies, communications, and marketing.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @01:35PM (6 children)
> Slow down.
Seriously, do you think anyone is going to pay to go slower? This is not a marketable solution.
It may be that government enforces it "at the end of a gun" as some people here are prone to write, but I don't think very many people will accept that solution for long.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 28 2021, @03:17PM (5 children)
Slower can be faster, you know.
At present, one idiot driver can shut down a six lane highway with one stupid decision. He desperately wants to pass the ugly delivery truck in front of him, so he swerves into the next lane to go faster - and causes a pileup. The AI never got impatient, had no reason to pass the ugly truck, and never swerved into the next lane without checking for danger.
The idiot can and does cause thousands of people to arrive home late after work. The AI simply doesn't care how soon it gets home - it's parameters dictate that it arrive safely. It isn't going to perform some crazy stunt to save 0.3 seconds getting to the off ramp ahead of the delivery truck.
The removal of impulsive, distracted, and half retarded drivers from the decision making process is the biggest reason for putting AI in charge of our cars.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @03:51PM (4 children)
Plus you can masturbate and get drunk on your commute. More than usual.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 28 2021, @05:28PM (2 children)
>Plus you can masturbate and get drunk on your commute. More than usual.
I don't think so. I'm sure the police will come up with some excuse as to why they need to pull over random drivers (especially black ones) and threaten them at gunpoint if they see them drinking or masturbating.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 28 2021, @06:13PM (1 child)
Occupying a self driving vehicle while black.
Or . . .
Owning a self driving vehicle while black.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @06:50PM
Well the latter means it must be stolen... so... ya. /sarcasm
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 28 2021, @07:24PM
Bah, people did that back in the days of horses and horse drawn carriages. Those things had NI (natural intelligence) driving. Put the horse on a road it knows, point it in the direction of home, give it a nudge to get it started, and it'll go home, no further guidance necessary. People could be passed out from drink, making out, gambling, or doing any number of other things during the ride that have nothing to do with driving. The horse will amble along at a slow pace, which is all the better for those needing or wanting more time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @01:32PM (5 children)
Another outcome: The car is "smart" enough (including querying the weather service and other cars that have already used those roads) to recognize the high probability of black ice along the planned route...and refuses to make that trip. If it's really clever it will check to see if studded tires are fitted (excellent traction on ice) or if there is another route that avoids the road hazard.
I'm sorry Dave, you can't get there from here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday January 28 2021, @03:06PM
The technical solution to the moral problem works in the particular case, but not in the general case. I realize that the approach you suggest can be, to an extent, generalized, but there WILL be unexpected decisions required.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 28 2021, @03:25PM
Ah yes, nanny cars. I can see they're practically going to sell themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2021, @04:07PM (1 child)
> ...
> I'm sorry Dave, you can't get there from here.
Just to add another thought to my post above:
I won't be buying anything like this.
Have already got a few older cars (a couple I inherited) without touch screens on the dash and the other recent crap. My plan is to maintain them and keep using as long as gas is available. Based on my parents' lifetimes, I might have 35 years left of driving. Seems reasonably likely I'll still be able to buy some sort of fuel for these cars.
(Score: 1) by r_a_trip on Friday January 29 2021, @10:28AM
Government can pass laws making ICE vehicles illegal to drive on public roads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30 2021, @03:24PM
Why does the driver even need to plan the route. The driver should just select the destination and let the car plan the route while the driver is asleep not even worrying about it. I don't particularly care what route the car takes, within reason, so long as it gets me there (again, within reason).