Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

This seems drastically oversimplified. For instance, all of the scenarios depicting a crash into a concrete barrier assume the death of everyone in the car, but generally a car has far more protection for its passengers (airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc), than pedestrians have from being struck by a vehicle.

View on HN

The "car accident" is a straw setup. The real question of this study, and it's blind assumption, is that some human life is more valuable than other human life, and that "morality" is the task of baking these judgements into a database.

These are all false dilemmas with artificially limited outcomes. In these particular situations, the option of randomly choosing is not even considered by the study. The presumption is that these kinds of things are decidable, not only by human beings, but by well designed machines.

I'm feeling really discouraged right now that this even exists, much less out of such a powerful institution as MIT...

Yes, in reality that's true but the scenarios are just simplified and you're kind of supposed to take the everyone dies as just a fact of the universe this is taking place in. Arguing about the facts kind of avoids the main question it's asking which is given the ability to choose from these 2 which is the more /moral/ choice.

Really there's rarely going to be a chance for a machine to even make these decisions because the chances of it being so out of control to have only 2 options and still being in control enough to take them is practically impossible. Much less having the ability to /know/ that action A will kill pedestrians vs action B killing passengers.

For the first barrier question, I choose to "hit the pedestrians".

The probability of hitting the wall if you drive at it is 1. The probability of hitting the pedestrians isn't necessarily 1, since they can react to you. Probably not very well, but perhaps they can jump out of the way or behind the barrier or something.

Also, can this car not also HONK LOUDLY when it makes the decision to drive towards the pedestrians? This would further lower the risk that the pedestrians will actually get hit.

Exactly what I came here to say. Activate the horns/car alarm, switch off the engine/disconnect the clutch, avoid obstacles if possible but otherwise go in a straight line, below some speed threshold hitting a solid obstacle is acceptable. Done.

And also, isn't it the responsibility of the owner of a car to make sure their brakes don't fail?

If negligence causes a problem with the car, I don't think it should be taken out on others.

That bugged me the most. I chose the barrier whenever given a chance.

Without a steering column there is even more room for safety features, making this even more attractive.

Same here. It was a bit baffling that the scenario is apparently a self-drive car with a poison gas capsule attached such that contact with any obstacle kills all occupants. Sheesh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com