Self-Driving Mercedes Will Be Programmed To Sacrifice Pedestrians

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Remember that MIT test (here) that let you decide who your autonomous car should run over in case of an accident? Well, it looks as though Mercedes will be making that decision for you now. The good news is, if you are the driver, you'll be okay. Pedestrians? Not so much.
 
If you're paying that much for a car then it should save the passengers who are proven to be successful people. If you buy an econobox then it should kill you for being poor as the pedestrian might be a more successful person.

Joking, but what if they were programmed that way? Caste system based on wealth. Wouldn't be hard as everyone will have RFID badges letting the car know who is inside the car. Just add wealth information to the badge,
 
It's horse shit to think that it HAS to run over pedestrians when they can perfectly well program it to hit a pole or a wall or some kind of object in order to slow the vehicle down. Furthermore I'd like to think that if there was such a major malfunction the first line of defense would naturally be to have the vehicle simply stop and shut down in the event of malfunctions of any sort till the issue is resolved.
 
"Say the car is spinning out of control, and on course to hit a crowd queuing at a bus stop. It can correct its course, but in doing so, it'll kill a cyclist for sure. What does it do? "

If it can correct its course, then it isn't out of control. Thus, manslaughter, single or multiple counts. The car goes to jail, protecting the driver.
 
cageymaru said:
If you're paying that much for a car then it should save the passengers who are proven to be successful people. If you buy an econobox then it should kill you for being poor as the pedestrian might be a more successful person.

Joking, but what if they were programmed that way? Caste system based on wealth. Wouldn't be hard as everyone will have RFID badges letting the car know who is inside the car. Just add wealth information to the badge,
Click to expand...

I know right? That's why you buy a Benz in the first place. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
cageymaru said:
If you're paying that much for a car then it should save the passengers who are proven to be successful people. If you buy an econobox then it should kill you for being poor as the pedestrian might be a more successful person.

Joking, but what if they were programmed that way? Caste system based on wealth. Wouldn't be hard as everyone will have RFID badges letting the car know who is inside the car. Just add wealth information to the badge,
Click to expand...


While awful, there is a certain truth to this though. If you are car shopping, why would you spend your money on a car that is programmed to sacrifice you and your family in the case of an accident? All car makers will have a built in financial incentive to show that they prioritize the occupants of the car, not pedestrians, because that is what car buyers will buy.

All that being said, I think this is a false choice. The cases in which a car will make a choice between sacrificing a pedestrian vs sacrificing occupants will be exceedingly rare. Where do you normally see pedestrians? In the city and around town. Speed limits in these areas are low enough (and any autonomous vehicle will be programmed to observe speed limits) that the choice is more between killing a pedestrian and damaging the car, and possibly giving occupants slight cuts and bruises. If that is the choice it better damned well save the pedestrian rather than the paint job.
 
SDplus said:
In this case no one has to... :)
Click to expand...
But think about the original statement and the inferred meaning. Do you or anyone else wants to at the dealership be asked "So our automated car system can be configured to prioritize your safety or others safety. Which one do you want to pick?"

Me personally, i'll get the cow splitter in the front. Others might struggle to choose a choice that might not sit right with their conscious.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
But think about the original statement and the inferred meaning. Do you or anyone else wants to at the dealership be asked "So our automated car system can be configured to prioritize your safety or others safety. Which one do you want to pick?"

Me personally, i'll get the cow splitter in the front. Others might struggle to choose a choice that might not sit right with their conscious.
Click to expand...

Yea, there's the answer you want everyone to think you picked (PC), but the reality is you'd pick your loved ones at least before yourself and lastly strangers.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The cases in which a car will make a choice between sacrificing a pedestrian vs sacrificing occupants will be exceedingly rare. Where do you normally see pedestrians? In the city and around town. Speed limits in these areas are low enough (and any autonomous vehicle will be programmed to observe speed limits) that the choice is more between killing a pedestrian and damaging the car, and possibly giving occupants slight cuts and bruises. If that is the choice it better damned well save the pedestrian rather than the paint job.
Click to expand...

Think of a bridge with a path for pedestrians. Imagine a scenario where random pedestrians jumps divider into road and you have a split second to decide, hit crazy stupid pedestrian in your path or veer to right taking you off the bridge killing anyone in car?
 
Great Tiger said:
It's horse shit to think that it HAS to run over pedestrians when they can perfectly well program it to hit a pole or a wall or some kind of object in order to slow the vehicle down. Furthermore I'd like to think that if there was such a major malfunction the first line of defense would naturally be to have the vehicle simply stop and shut down in the event of malfunctions of any sort till the issue is resolved.
Click to expand...

Sure, that could work. But what should the car choose if a pedestrian suddenly runs out in front of you and there is an 18 wheeler right behind you? I think its admittedly rare, but those situations do need to be coded for.
 
The the car, which reacts thousands of times faster than you, has to be coded to make a decision that you are biologically incapable of making in a measure of time that your are biologically incapable of registering.

Computers don't do "suddenly" or "out of nowhere". The time frame required to "surprise" the car is a time frame that you are simply not capable of reacting to. If the car was in a situation that you could react to, it could surf some pr0n and stop for a smoke while it thought about hitting the breaks to prevent an accident that you are biologically incapable of preventing.

That's called an upgrade behind the wheel.
 
In most cases, pedestrians that are at risk are the most clueless ones anyway. That, or brazenly touting their 'right of way' and walk directly in front of a moving vehicle.
 
It will be programmed to take whatever actions will lead to the least amount of lawsuits or liability toward the manufacturer.
 
if it was made to swerve to avoid people then just how long until people started walking out in front of it for fun.
 
arnemetis said:
It will be programmed to take whatever actions will lead to the least amount of lawsuits or liability toward the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

This was totally my thought too.... I guess it depends which market you're selling the car in?
 
I think the major consideration being overlooked in these responses, is that this decision to hit pedestrians is based on the reasoning that the vehicle will be operating within the law, so, given the choice of risking/killing the driver because a pedestrian is breaking the law is INCORRECT.

Of course I am filling in some logical blanks here, but within the most probable reasoning I believe.
 
SDplus said:
In this case no one has to... :)
Click to expand...

But someone has and in my opinion, they are responsible for it.

A human doesn't really do this, they don't actually have time to choose, they just have time to react and try to miss the first obstacle, then the second, and as many as they can manage until they start hitting what they are no longer able to miss. It should be enough for cars to do a better job at the same thing. The car shouldn't be making judgement calls based on predetermined decisions.
 
This has so many classist and social ramifications that are not easily discussed. grabbing my popcorn.
 
lcpiper said:
A human doesn't really do this, they don't actually have time to choose, they just have time to react and try to miss the first obstacle, then the second, and as many as they can manage until they start hitting what they are no longer able to miss. It should be enough for cars to do a better job at the same thing. The car shouldn't be making judgement calls based on predetermined decisions.
Click to expand...

Soooo, how does this work exactly? We program the computer for "ambiguity" mode when in crisis? Not sure which would be scarier. Besides, this is all well and good but academic. There will be a car under control of a computer that will kill an innocent, and they'll be sued out of existence. Other manufacturers will take notice, and remove self-driving feature. This is why we can't have nice things. :grumpy:
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The cases in which a car will make a choice between sacrificing a pedestrian vs sacrificing occupants will be exceedingly rare. Where do you normally see pedestrians? In the city and around town. Speed limits in these areas are low enough (and any autonomous vehicle will be programmed to observe speed limits) that the choice is more between killing a pedestrian and damaging the car, and possibly giving occupants slight cuts and bruises. If that is the choice it better damned well save the pedestrian rather than the paint job.
Click to expand...


Although I agree with your conclusions and values, I disagree with your view of the situation. Although completely logical, it doesn't fit reality. Reality has nothing to do with likelihood or odds, it's just what is. You know my experience, two kids off my front bumper in a 50mph zone at night. And do you know why?

It's because shit can't happen without shit to happen into. You can't have a fatal pedestrian related traffic accident unless the conditions support it, there must be opportunity. You are saying that it's only probably in congested areas where it in turn, speeds and such work against it's likelyhood of happening. I'm not arguing this, I am in turn continuing with the analysis and asking myself where and how it could happen and continuing from there. Roadways of 45 mph + is where it can happen, so this is where it does happen. A cop giving a ticket, kids crossing roads they shouldn't be in, runners on country roads, etc. This is where it can happen, so this is where it will happen.

If you look at the statistics of fatal pedestrian related traffic accidents I'd be willing to bet that most of them happen, not in crowded downtown areas with lower speed limits, but in the city outskirts, on the faster roadways that have residential neighborhoods within the area. 45mph + with people out doing what they shouldn't be doing in places and at times that they shouldn't be. Then all you need is a random ingredient, a distraction, bad lighting, something that surprises the driver, and you have dead people.

So I agree with you in many ways, but I think if you continue with your reasoning you'll come to the same conclusion as I, and maybe no longer consider this a false choice. I don't think it's a false choice, I just think it's not a choice they should even try to make.

Some decisions just shouldn't be made.

Let the cars do the best they can to avoid hitting pedestrians and a hard impact for the driver and that should be good enough. Making value calls is a mistake and is folly.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Soooo, how does this work exactly? We program the computer for "ambiguity" mode when in crisis? Not sure which would be scarier. Besides, this is all well and good but academic. There will be a car under control of a computer that will kill an innocent, and they'll be sued out of existence. Other manufacturers will take notice, and remove self-driving feature. This is why we can't have nice things. :grumpy:
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding. You program the car only to avoid hitting things, not to make choices of what to hit. If you make the car act differently than you would expect a human to do, then you must accept responsibility for that. It should be good enough to mimic human reactions but just do it better, and if the car just can't avoid everything and hit's someone, well a human could have done no better, it remains an accident.

But if you start choosing targets, you are choosing to hit and likely kill someone. This thinking is a rabbit hole no one should be so arrogant as to think they should go down.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The the car, which reacts thousands of times faster than you, has to be coded to make a decision that you are biologically incapable of making in a measure of time that your are biologically incapable of registering.

Computers don't do "suddenly" or "out of nowhere". The time frame required to "surprise" the car is a time frame that you are simply not capable of reacting to. If the car was in a situation that you could react to, it could surf some pr0n and stop for a smoke while it thought about hitting the breaks to prevent an accident that you are biologically incapable of preventing.

That's called an upgrade behind the wheel.
Click to expand...

True, computers will be sensing and stopping far sooner than humans and that will lead to fewer accidents and save lives. But what should the decisions be when the computer cannot beat physics? If a moose jumps out of a ditch 50ft sooner than the stopping distance of your car at your current speed, what should the computer "decide"? How should that decision change if there is a huge diesel on your tail or you are on a blind corner at night? I agree the statistics will be better for computers, but the question remains what should the decisions be when the computer knows it is boned and you are going to crash?
 
Why people even discuss about this?

Its only natural that facebook likes and tweeter followers should dictate who lives and who dies. :confused::confused::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I think the idea that these cars will be omnipotent and react so inhumanly fast isn't holding up with reality. Even google cars have been in accidents and those are in somewhat controlled or less risky locations. They are not going to be wonder cars any time too soon.
 
Title is a bit misleading. Implies the autopilot will prefer to use sidewalks in order to maximize pedestrian casualties on route.
 
lcpiper said:
Although I agree with your conclusions and values, I disagree with your view of the situation. Although completely logical, it doesn't fit reality. Reality has nothing to do with likelihood or odds, it's just what is. You know my experience, two kids off my front bumper in a 50mph zone at night. And do you know why?

It's because shit can't happen without shit to happen into. You can't have a fatal pedestrian related traffic accident unless the conditions support it, there must be opportunity. You are saying that it's only probably in congested areas where it in turn, speeds and such work against it's likelyhood of happening. I'm not arguing this, I am in turn continuing with the analysis and asking myself where and how it could happen and continuing from there. Roadways of 45 mph + is where it can happen, so this is where it does happen. A cop giving a ticket, kids crossing roads they shouldn't be in, runners on country roads, etc. This is where it can happen, so this is where it will happen.

If you look at the statistics of fatal pedestrian related traffic accidents I'd be willing to bet that most of them happen, not in crowded downtown areas with lower speed limits, but in the city outskirts, on the faster roadways that have residential neighborhoods within the area. 45mph + with people out doing what they shouldn't be doing in places and at times that they shouldn't be. Then all you need is a random ingredient, a distraction, bad lighting, something that surprises the driver, and you have dead people.

So I agree with you in many ways, but I think if you continue with your reasoning you'll come to the same conclusion as I, and maybe no longer consider this a false choice. I don't think it's a false choice, I just think it's not a choice they should even try to make.

Some decisions just shouldn't be made.

Let the cars do the best they can to avoid hitting pedestrians and a hard impact for the driver and that should be good enough. Making value calls is a mistake and is folly.
Click to expand...

And if that hard impact kills the driver because the computer couldn't defeat physics, what then?

lcpiper said:
I think you are misunderstanding. You program the car only to avoid hitting things, not to make choices of what to hit. If you make the car act differently than you would expect a human to do, then you must accept responsibility for that. It should be good enough to mimic human reactions but just do it better, and if the car just can't avoid everything and hit's someone, well a human could have done no better, it remains an accident.

But if you start choosing targets, you are choosing to hit and likely kill someone. This thinking is a rabbit hole no one should be so arrogant as to think they should go down.
Click to expand...

The omnipotence of a computer is what prevents your scenario from being possible. A properly designed system will know what is ahead by at least 15 seconds, and a radius of at least 40 feet. Say someone steps in front of the car, and the only "safe" path to swerve is to the sidewalk, but there are multiple pedestrians on the sidewalk. A human can claim that he wasn't aware of people on the sidewalk and was simply reacting without thinking, but a computer cannot claim that. Our technology might not be super sophisticated, but it's not at a basic level either.
 
Ducman69 said:
Title is a bit misleading. Implies the autopilot will prefer to use sidewalks in order to maximize pedestrian casualties on route.
Click to expand...

Actually this is what Mercedes said right up front'
Instead of worrying about troublesome details like ethics, Mercedes will just program its cars to save the driver and the car's occupants, in every situation.
Click to expand...

And this actually is what I have been saying they all should do. Just try to avoid things and that is all Mercedes is actually saying here as far as I can see.

We have people who are over thinking this entire issue. They are approaching this as if they have the capability to choose the best outcome from a higher moral position. I think that is arrogance born because these people don't actually feel responsible for what they are doing. If they truly understood and accepted that by approaching this as an opportunity to make a choice that they are accepting actual responsibility for the outcomes, they wouldn't be making this choice at all. But they feel no responsibility that they are developing a "targeting system" while at the same time they are laying that exact line on Mercedes because they are taking a different approach.

This is pretty pathetic as I see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
Tsumi said:
And if that hard impact kills the driver because the computer couldn't defeat physics, what then?



The omnipotence of a computer is what prevents your scenario from being possible. A properly designed system will know what is ahead by at least 15 seconds, and a radius of at least 40 feet. Say someone steps in front of the car, and the only "safe" path to swerve is to the sidewalk, but there are multiple pedestrians on the sidewalk. A human can claim that he wasn't aware of people on the sidewalk and was simply reacting without thinking, but a computer cannot claim that. Our technology might not be super sophisticated, but it's not at a basic level either.
Click to expand...


Really? Then why are Google cars getting into accidents? Omnipotent my ass. Maybe some day they will become closer to what you seem to think they are capable of today, but that reality will also be partly the result of adapting roadways for self driving cars and not just all on the cars to bring about.

I'll tell you this that I know for a fact. If any of these smart ethical engineers and thinkers had ever been in an accident and killed someone. they wouldn't even consider trying to make the machine "choose". They would only focus on making it try to avoid and tell me, if these machines are so damned perfect, then why isn't simple avoidance good enough? Seems like there would never be another accident ever again if they are as super as you seem to believe.
 
It probably won't activate its turn signals either, in keeping with German luxury car tradition.
 
This is not about class or who has the most cash, this is about buying a self driving vehicle. If I buy a self driving vehicle, I want it to prioritize the passengers inside the vehicle over those outside of it by default. If others would like a different choice for their own cars, that is their business.
 
I don't see such an ethical dilemma here. As someone who has had to cycle or walk a lot in areas without little to no shoulder, treating cars as giant objects that will kill you if you don't watch out is definitely the route to go. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of drivers behave like decent people, all it takes is one not following the rules to kill you. This just removes some of the ambiguity.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
While awful, there is a certain truth to this though. If you are car shopping, why would you spend your money on a car that is programmed to sacrifice you and your family in the case of an accident? All car makers will have a built in financial incentive to show that they prioritize the occupants of the car, not pedestrians, because that is what car buyers will buy.

All that being said, I think this is a false choice. The cases in which a car will make a choice between sacrificing a pedestrian vs sacrificing occupants will be exceedingly rare. Where do you normally see pedestrians? In the city and around town. Speed limits in these areas are low enough (and any autonomous vehicle will be programmed to observe speed limits) that the choice is more between killing a pedestrian and damaging the car, and possibly giving occupants slight cuts and bruises. If that is the choice it better damned well save the pedestrian rather than the paint job.
Click to expand...

But the paint never quite matches. Blood washes off.
 
Ducman69 said:
Title is a bit misleading. Implies the autopilot will prefer to use sidewalks in order to maximize pedestrian casualties on route.
Click to expand...

deathrace 2000?

should the car aim for skinnier people since they will do less damage to the car? how about old slow moving people?
 
um, i think it would be much better if it was programmed to hit the nearest tree, you cant kill a tree, why should a pedestrian die cause your dumbass is riding a car you have no control over
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top