MIT Lets You Decide Who To Kill In A Self-Driving Car Wreck

Well this is dumb. The first scenario I got has the casualties as death to either:
1. a man, a woman and a male athlete
2. a large man, a large woman and a man

WHY the hell does the profession of a victim matter? Why does the "size" (which doesn't stipulate tall or fat) matter?

Quite possibly the DUMBEST thing ever for MIT to poll.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
My biases are apparently against pets and jaywalkers, and in favor of children. Honestly though, who would choose to kill a child over an old person? Sorry old person.
Click to expand...
Children are easier to replace than old people. Old people have often tens of thousands of dollars worth of education invested in them, unique skillsets, and life experiences that are unique. You can pop out a new kid in less than a year, easy. And making kids is fun, at least the guy's contribution.
Zarathustra[H] said:
And pets? I'm sorry animals, but you simply do not have equal value. I'd kill a billion animals to save even one human being.
Click to expand...
Animals are good people. Ever seen a Labrador hook up another dog's testicles to a car battery before? Nope, but people do that. People suck.

And honestly people are quite overpopulated. Deer and boar populations reach a few thousand, and we insist we have to cull them for their own good. Human population hits a few billion, and we are all "meh".
 
westrock2000 said:
Would it just be easier to severely curtail the human population density then have to come up with super complex self driving car? We already have the ability to reduce the human population, so really it's the fiscally responsible choice.

Vote for Prop 354 - Human Depopulation!
Click to expand...

>Prop 354 is voted on and passes by great margin

>The human population on Earth is reduced by 50%

>The roadways and infrastructure of the planet remain as built and humans enjoy easy hassle free driving for three years

>The costs of maintaining the roadways and infrastructure of the Earth are levied onto tax payers who's taxes increase three fold to cover the costs

>No one can afford to own a car anymore
 
lcpiper said:
>Prop 354 is voted on and passes by great margin

>The human population on Earth is reduced by 50%

>The roadways and infrastructure of the planet remain as built and humans enjoy easy hassle free driving for three years

>The costs of maintaining the roadways and infrastructure of the Earth are levied onto tax payers who's taxes increase three fold to cover the costs

>No one can afford to own a car anymore
Click to expand...
Depends which half of the population you kill.

Half of the population are not net tax contributors, meaning they cost society more in taxes than they contribute to the pool. Essentially, they may only be eating one slice of pizza, but they only helped make half a slice. Remove them from the pool, and you actually end up with more pizza for everyone else.

This is why I promote recycling homeless people into cat food, as recycling is good for the environment.
 
No one has to die.

308_046.bmp
 
I chose to kill the occupants of the car as much as possible. Why? My dad always told me that a runaway 18 wheeler that lost it's brakes coming down a steep incline was supposed to run into the barrier to stop it regardless of potential outcome. Your hardware failed; take the loss yourself.

Pets and humans? Kill the pets. No barrier and humans in both lanes? Kill the humans in the lane that you're already in. Main point is self driving car loses brakes? Eat the barrier 100% of the time as you should have bought a better car, paid attention to maintenance, or your car manufacturer is at fault. Take your chances with the barrier.
 
Wolfkin said:
I still don't understand why you'd want a self-driving car, driving is the fun part of owning a car.
Click to expand...

I'd love to have a self-driving car, but I'm legally blind, so I'm only speaking for myself and everyone else who's too low vision to drive.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
The safety should always be on the side of the person in the vehicle, or else why bother taking it if it's first thought is to sacrifice you.
Most of these scenarios involve idiots running out into the street anyways. If they have a death wish why stop them?
Click to expand...

If the choice is sacrificing 5 children who are crossing the street legally or sacrificing just you, which do you choose?
 
evilsofa said:
If the choice is sacrificing 5 children who are crossing the street legally or sacrificing just you, which do you choose?
Click to expand...
Depends, are they, like, ginger kids?
evilsofa said:
I'd love to have a self-driving car, but I'm legally blind
Click to expand...
Since you bring it up, do you see a difference between legally blind people like yourself, and the illegally blind?

I'll let myself out...
 
This crash scenario sound familiar. I remember writing about this on this very site. >_>
 
I pretty much crashed the car every single time, except in the case of animals crossing the street. When it came to animals, I always ran over the animals. Mainly because I figure that when crashing the car, at least someone will survive. Because I seriously doubt you're going at highway speeds in a situation where there would be people crossing the road. So how the hell does EVERYONE end up dying in a modern car crash? The only time I chose to not crash the car was when there were two bank robbers crossing the street. Because screw robbers.

Anyway though doing that made me end up with some rather hilarious statistics. My most killed was a cat, and my most saved was a pregnant woman. It said I had a heavy bias towards saving women, too. Which is totally not really what I was doing.
 
Saw this a long time ago and people's answers are really disingenous when you get to the results. People clearly aren't putting themselves in the car as I would bet good money their answers would be radically different. The fact is there are only two right answers and only two answers that will result in people buying self driving cars; 1) Preserve the lives of the occupants above all else and 2) If that isn't possible then minimize lost of life as much as possible. Having the criminal and pregnant woman in the mix is nothing more than a social diversion. The car will have absolutely zero means to determine that and it isn't relevant in the slightest. The other choice is only and should only be Occupant > Pedestrian > Animal.

Edit: Also the descriptions are bogus and irrelevant as a direct result of what I said. I did not and had no need to read any of the descriptions because "who" you are running over doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
I chose to kill the occupants of the car as much as possible. Why? My dad always told me that a runaway 18 wheeler that lost it's brakes coming down a steep incline was supposed to run into the barrier to stop it regardless of potential outcome. Your hardware failed; take the loss yourself.

Pets and humans? Kill the pets. No barrier and humans in both lanes? Kill the humans in the lane that you're already in. Main point is self driving car loses brakes? Eat the barrier 100% of the time as you should have bought a better car, paid attention to maintenance, or your car manufacturer is at fault. Take your chances with the barrier.
Click to expand...
Thats very noble...Maybe you could bail at the last moments?
 
lostinseganet said:
Thats very noble...Maybe you could bail at the last moments?
Click to expand...

It's what you're supposed to do; zero nobility involved. Here is a gravel trap. That's why the right lane is called the breakdown lane on interstates for example. Seem them with water barrels and cement barrier after the barrels. My dad's loaded dump truck ate a tree instead of running over cars and pedestrians in Washington, D.C. during the beginning construction of Interstate 95. Just rode up against the guardrail as long as possible down the hill until there was no more room. Chose the tree instead of killing 20 or more people.

His brakes on brand new personal dump truck carrying a load that he was getting paid for. Truck was towed back to the dealership and was fixed for free. Cops and pedestrians thanked him for the longest time for saving lives.

 
For many people driving, under any circumstance, "is" fun particularly as noted by some if you have a great car.

I don't think many people who are advocating self-driving cars are actually thinking things through. Traffic is liable to get worse when you have cars all programmed to drive safely (i.e. slowly). You will spend even more time caught up in traffic and you will be powerless to do anything about it. If a self-driving car has a mechanical failure and crashes into your car you will likewise be powerless to do anything about it.

Some people are active and self-reliant while others are passive and dependent. I am active and self-reliant and I will resist all efforts to suppress my individualism. I predict self-driving cars will be rejected by the American people and will be as hated as google-glasses.
 
thejokker said:
Traffic is liable to get worse when you have cars all programmed to drive safely (i.e. slowly). You will spend even more time caught up in traffic and you will be powerless to do anything about it. If a self-driving car has a mechanical failure and crashes into your car you will likewise be powerless to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Those things are already happening and will happen even if self-driving cars were never invented.

Some people are active and self-reliant while others are passive and dependent. I am active and self-reliant and I will resist all efforts to suppress my individualism. I predict self-driving cars will be rejected by the American people and will be as hated as google-glasses.
Click to expand...

Translation: you drive a huge red pickup truck with a jacked-up suspension, drive on the shoulder illegally when the speed limit is too slow for you, and have appeared several times on YouTube road-raging on bicyclists.
 
My opinion is to save occupants first then hit the people in the wrong next. This study makes age and gender inferences that aren't there. I'd run over a family of four that was jaywalking instead of a single old person that wasn't. Age is irrelevant, one is breaking the law the other is not. If you break the law there are consequences.

That being said in real life I'd run over a kid that jaywalked in front of me if it meant my other choice was to injure or kill myself. I mean, of course I don't want to kill anyone but if I was following the law and the kid wasn't, well then they have to pay the consequences for their behavior, I'm not biting that bullet for them. If it was a really small kid then the parents should be on the hook for the accident (as long as the driver was obeying traffic laws).
 
cageymaru said:
It's what you're supposed to do; zero nobility involved. Here is a gravel trap. That's why the right lane is called the breakdown lane on interstates for example. Seem them with water barrels and cement barrier after the barrels. My dad's loaded dump truck ate a tree instead of running over cars and pedestrians in Washington, D.C. during the beginning construction of Interstate 95. Just rode up against the guardrail as long as possible down the hill until there was no more room. Chose the tree instead of killing 20 or more people.

His brakes on brand new personal dump truck carrying a load that he was getting paid for. Truck was towed back to the dealership and was fixed for free. Cops and pedestrians thanked him for the longest time for saving lives.

Click to expand...

Professional Drivers aren't regular drivers by any stretch and your example isn't applicable. Good on your dad for doing his job, but that is all he did His Job. My job in a car I own isn't to protect other peoples lives and I'm certainly not going to be buying a car that doesn't protect me.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Professional Drivers aren't regular drivers by any stretch and your example isn't applicable. Good on your dad for doing his job, but that is all he did His Job. My job in a car I own isn't to protect other peoples lives and I'm certainly not going to be buying a car that doesn't protect me.
Click to expand...
Your car is a rolling safety cage. Unless you are going way too fast, you'll be fine hitting some object versus running over some innocent people walking down the sidewalk.
 
/usr/sbin said:
That being said in real life I'd run over a kid that jaywalked in front of me if it meant my other choice was to injure or kill myself. I mean, of course I don't want to kill anyone but if I was following the law and the kid wasn't, well then they have to pay the consequences for their behavior, I'm not biting that bullet for them. If it was a really small kid then the parents should be on the hook for the accident (as long as the driver was obeying traffic laws).
Click to expand...

In real life, most people who have that split second to make a decision choose not to harm the other human. You would probably not be the selfish sociopath that you claim to be.
 
evilsofa said:
If the choice is sacrificing 5 children who are crossing the street legally or sacrificing just you, which do you choose?
Click to expand...
The kids. They should have been paying more attention. A green crossing light doesn't absolve you of all responsibility.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I pretty much crashed the car every single time, except in the case of animals crossing the street. When it came to animals, I always ran over the animals. Mainly because I figure that when crashing the car, at least someone will survive. Because I seriously doubt you're going at highway speeds in a situation where there would be people crossing the road. So how the hell does EVERYONE end up dying in a modern car crash? The only time I chose to not crash the car was when there were two bank robbers crossing the street. Because screw robbers.

Anyway though doing that made me end up with some rather hilarious statistics. My most killed was a cat, and my most saved was a pregnant woman. It said I had a heavy bias towards saving women, too. Which is totally not really what I was doing.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting you but only for context.

What about a 50 MPH zone?

It was just getting dark, I was doing 45 in a 50 when I hit two children crossing the road pushing a shopping cart with a younger child in it. I killed the girl, hurt the boy I don't really know how bad. I was told he had a hole in his hip from my west coast mirror. the child in the cart wasn't hurt.

I still can't understand how these kids were out in the roadway crossing a 50 mph road, at night, no where near an intersection. As it is, I was barely able to live with myself after this. It's been almost 40 years and it still haunts me. I wasn't speeding, drinking, or distracted in any way and I was driving 5 mph under the speed limit. The kids were in a spot that just made them impossible to see until it was too late.

So I was lucky. Not because I wasn't charged, but because if I had been at fault in any way, I would have lost my soul for sure. A woman I work with told me the other day that I don't smile. I guess I am just not the kind of man who can kill a kid and not pay a price even if there was nothing I could do to avoid it.

Real situations rarely offer anyone a chance to decide anything. Most of the time it's just reacting, trying not to hit whatever it is that just jumped in your way, and you'll be lucky if you can even do that.

Believe me. Even lucky can be hard to live with.

BTW: What about the programmer who writes that algorithm? How is he going to live with himself when people are still dying and he wrote the code that decides who is going to die. It's not an accident anymore when someone is making choices.
 
Last edited:
My car should never try to kill me to save someone else. I don't care if its between runing over
evilsofa said:
If the choice is sacrificing 5 children who are crossing the street legally or sacrificing just you, which do you choose?
Click to expand...
Them my car should never try to kill me No mater what
 
DocSavage said:
Your car is a rolling safety cage. Unless you are going way too fast, you'll be fine hitting some object versus running over some innocent people walking down the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of this fact, however the entire point is the "Test" gave you two options; Kill yourself, or kill others. There was no grey area and honestly the entire test is bad. I'm simply pointing out that if my car has to make a choice between my life and someone else's, it damn well better value mine higher.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I'm well aware of this fact, however the entire point is the "Test" gave you two options; Kill yourself, or kill others. There was no grey area and honestly the entire test is bad. I'm simply pointing out that if my car has to make a choice between my life and someone else's, it damn well better value mine higher.
Click to expand...
You'll be signing the EULA, the pedestrians won't be. Who do you thing is going to get priority?
 
I do not like driving at all. I will be switching to robot car the first day it is available in my country.
If I need some adrenaline I will jump parachute or play Rainbow Six Siege with my clan.
 
I can see the future.

It's 2023 and the government has finally mandated all cars have autonomous control systems installed.
In 2025, all autonomous control systems must prioritize loss of life decisions in favor of "the greater good".
In 2027, youtube videos are being posted showing in detail the newest teenage thing, small groups of six or more kids are running out into the freeways laughing at the mayhem as vehicles launch themselves off of overpasses, and into oncoming traffic, as their autonomous systems attempt to minimize loss of life, for the greater good.
 
Everybody's overthinking this. We already had this figured out 40 years ago:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top