|
Dogs[^] usually look up to their owners. 
Cats would brake for nobody.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: Cats would brake for nobody.
They can't park[^] either! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
So you get bonus points for knocking down Danes? Kewl!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I found it interesting when I saw the results, as I did not take into consideration the age/gender etc of the people involved.
I only answered on the principle that where possible it should prioritise the safety of pedestrians over passengers, and there it was the choice of hitting pedestrians directly ahead or pedestrians to the side by swerving, to always hit those directly ahead [on the understanding they should have been looking before crossing, and those on the other side had already crossed far enough to be out of the path].
Of course the only winners may be lawyers, so where there's a choice to hit a lawyer, that's always my preferred option, to try to even things out a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Wastedtalent wrote: prioritise the safety of pedestrians over passengers
Nobody sane would buy such car.
|
|
|
|
|
...and that's the problem. Same kind of reactions if you have to choose between hitting a biker with a helmet on, or one without, given that the one with would survive the hit whereas the other not:
- Hit the one with helmet, then less bikers would wear helmets in order to not be the one with the highest probability of being hit.
- Hit the one without helmet, then you choose to intentionally kill someone instead of "only" injuring someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: and that's the problem.
I wasn't aware sanity is a problem. I wouldn't buy anything that would kill me to save some drunk idiot wandering a street.
|
|
|
|
|
What if you were the pedestrian and some drunk idiot was driving?
|
|
|
|
|
What? We're talking about self-driving cars. How are drunk drivers relevant to this discussion? Unless you think AI can get drunk.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of Tesla cars I guess, where the software deals with collision detection and some autonomy but ultimately there is still a human with some responsibility [I find it hard to picture a car where the owner/driver/whoever is controlling it is absolved of all responsibility].
|
|
|
|
|
Wastedtalent wrote: I find it hard to picture a car where the owner/driver/whoever is controlling it is absolved of all responsibility
Obviously it's hypothetical situation, otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
I also did, but looked ahead at other problems, so avoided crossing into the other lane unless a barrier was there.
|
|
|
|
|
Leslie also posted this solution: God Mode ON[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Surely there would also need to be a preferredTarget array? 
Something like:
var preferredTargets = [MIL, WIFES_EX_BOYFRIEND, OBNOXIOUS_NEIGHBOUR_WITH_BARKING_CHIHUAHUA];
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
But has Leslie posted this one yet? Self-Driving Car Ethics[^]
This also seems relevant: An Ethical Trilemma[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, we don't really need self driving cars. It would be enough if we could install AI in the 99% of drivers that are thinking impaired... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Summary:
I care for the law
I care for the human
I care for the young
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: I care for the young
In the Asian culture, they'd let young people die over elderly : Knowledge has more importance than youth.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say it is my view... It is the summary of some AI of my decisions...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Mine as my own? It depends. As of now, to prioritize the safety of me an the passengers.
When or if the self driving cars will be common or even mandatory by law I'll reprogram mine to be as daring as possible and to wipe the axe with the rules. All of the other cars will be forced by their own algorithms to avoid collision with unpredictable behaviour.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: to prioritize the safety of me an the passengers.
Of course - who would want to buy a car they knew were programmed to spare other people and kill the driver if necessary? Stupid idea in the first place!
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 5-Sep-16 6:49am.
|
|
|
|
|
Anything that isn't me is unimportant! 
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have trouble judging any of the scenarios. I find it difficult to believe that a self-driving car would be going so fast in an area where pedestrians cross roads, that the built-in safety features of the car wouldn't protect its occupants when crashing into something. Given that, we're really comparing the ethics of a self-driving car control software failure compounded by a brake failure, vs. running over pedestrians. Given that, it's a double failure -- might as well crash the car in all cases since it should already have happened long ago, before ever picking up that much speed and risking getting that close to pedestrians.
How to slow down a vehicle whose brakes have failed is Driving 101, and I sure hope it still is today. Any manufacturer of self-driving car that doesn't have those strategies programmed into it, is 100% liable for all property damage and injury that results.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow, they just fail to deliver on the promise. Now this[^] on the other hand...
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
