Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)With Driverless Cars, a Safety Dilemma Arises: Would you buy a car that might decide to kill you? [View all]
With Driverless Cars, a Safety Dilemma Arises
Survey respondents say cars should try to protect as many pedestrians as possible in an accident scenario
By Amy Dockser Marcus
amy.marcus@wsj.com
June 23, 2016 2:00 p.m. ET
Would you buy a car that might decide to kill you?
It is a question social-science researchers are exploring amid the development of driverless cars. While commercial applications may be years away, any fully autonomous vehicle that eventually takes to the road will need to make decisionslike whether to swerve to miss one pedestrian at the risk of hitting another. ... Many ethicists argue that a public conversation should be part of the development process.
In a study published in Science, researchers found people want the cars to be programmed to minimize casualties while on the road. But when asked about what kind of vehicle they might actually purchase, they chose a car that would protect the car occupants first. ... The paper describes a series of online surveys that posited various scenarios.
In one, participants were asked to imagine that they are in a self-driving vehicle traveling at the speed limit. Out of nowhere, 10 pedestrians appear in the direct path of the car. Should engineers program the car to swerve off the road in such instances, killing the car occupant but leaving the 10 pedestrians unharmed, or keep going, killing the 10 people?
Survey respondents say cars should try to protect as many pedestrians as possible in an accident scenario
By Amy Dockser Marcus
amy.marcus@wsj.com
June 23, 2016 2:00 p.m. ET
Would you buy a car that might decide to kill you?
It is a question social-science researchers are exploring amid the development of driverless cars. While commercial applications may be years away, any fully autonomous vehicle that eventually takes to the road will need to make decisionslike whether to swerve to miss one pedestrian at the risk of hitting another. ... Many ethicists argue that a public conversation should be part of the development process.
In a study published in Science, researchers found people want the cars to be programmed to minimize casualties while on the road. But when asked about what kind of vehicle they might actually purchase, they chose a car that would protect the car occupants first. ... The paper describes a series of online surveys that posited various scenarios.
In one, participants were asked to imagine that they are in a self-driving vehicle traveling at the speed limit. Out of nowhere, 10 pedestrians appear in the direct path of the car. Should engineers program the car to swerve off the road in such instances, killing the car occupant but leaving the 10 pedestrians unharmed, or keep going, killing the 10 people?
77 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
With Driverless Cars, a Safety Dilemma Arises: Would you buy a car that might decide to kill you? [View all]
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
OP
No - it works with input X=output Y not with every possible scenario linked to a specific response
whatthehey
Jun 2016
#12
Values aren't necessary, just priority commands. Value driven AI is a fair way off yet.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#33
I agree it is very contrived and provides cause to wonder abouit the result will be used.
Todays_Illusion
Jun 2016
#59
Keen way for a group to plot to kill someone -- simply step in front of their car and . . .
Journeyman
Jun 2016
#3
Well, I certainly can't see any reason why we should be slightly suspicious of...
Shandris
Jun 2016
#10
Yep. Statistically flying is *much* safer than traveling by car, yet people fear flying much more--
tblue37
Jul 2016
#66
This reminds me of one 5-year period when I kept getting called for jury duty. Over and over again,
tblue37
Jul 2016
#70
Without aids I am profoundly deaf. With them, I still can't understand most speech unless
tblue37
Jul 2016
#77
We need individual transport pods--like in "Minority Report," or "The Jetsons":
tblue37
Jul 2016
#69
I'm guessing the 1% will be able to pay for the "personal protection priority" option. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jun 2016
#26
As a career machinist, I'd bet you've had close calls with human error.
JustABozoOnThisBus
Jun 2016
#40
Considering how often your cell phone drops calls or your tablet freezes up or gets
tblue37
Jul 2016
#71
Driverless Cars Should Kill Passengers To Save Lives - But Then People Won't Buy Them
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
#44
If an airline pilot ever had to choose whether to kill everyone on the plane in order to save a much
TacoD
Jun 2016
#50
With my last job I was driving all time on Florida streets. I'm all for driverless cars.
RAFisher
Jun 2016
#56
Right now we are all at the mercey of other drivers and have managed to reduce hiway deaths/per
Todays_Illusion
Jun 2016
#58
I would trust the driverless car over a normal car, unless the driver is a woman.
Little Tich
Jun 2016
#60
So you are saying pedestrians would be walking where they obviously aren't supposed to be
alphafemale
Jul 2016
#61