Interesting...
-
Should Robot Cars Be Programmed To Kill You If It Will Save More Lives? [^]
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
I'm surprised that nobody mentioned Asimov so far (at least AFAIK, nobody mentioned him) I believe that the poll is misleading (particularly the part that says "especially if I paid for it". That's just crap to drive people to pick the suicide choice as the "morally correct" one). The two choices set as possible outcomes to the question posed to the robot are: 1. Kill the occupant(s) only. 2. Possibly kill the occupant(s) and occupant(s) of other bot-car(s) as well If the three laws apply, then both of these choices would be rejected immediately as violating the first law (actively killing the occupants, or by doing nothing - i.e. inaction - possibly kill others). The bot-car would probably try to steer away from ALL oncoming traffic, and ALL oncoming traffic would probably try to steer away from the bot-car. In the end all bot-cars would actively try to save their occupants and the occupants of the other bot-cars first, and themselves (i.e. the bots) second.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων! (Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
-
This will just bring on more car hacking. Use a car key to send an encoded signal which overflows a correct-key-match buffer and tells the car it really needs to kill all its occupants. National Security and hired assassinations made easy.
The premise already is that the robotic car is programmed to kill its occupants under certain conditions (presumably to minimize the overall loss). I merely suggested additional conditions. And, yes, however these conditions are programmed, any software system can and will be hacked and abused. The question is, how much damage will be incurred through abuse, manipulation, or just honest software errors, compared to the damage these systems may avert...
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto) Point in case: http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/02/apple_gotofail_lessons[^]
-
Should Robot Cars Be Programmed To Kill You If It Will Save More Lives? [^]
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
Interesting problem, I wonder if the person in the car that's about to slam into the SUV loaded with the family with 4 kids would do if given the choice?
Along with Antimatter and Dark Matter they've discovered the existence of Doesn't Matter which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever! Rich Tennant 5th Wave
-
Interesting problem, I wonder if the person in the car that's about to slam into the SUV loaded with the family with 4 kids would do if given the choice?
Along with Antimatter and Dark Matter they've discovered the existence of Doesn't Matter which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever! Rich Tennant 5th Wave
Ok car. Drive over the cliff. Are you sure? Ah, too late... If I I had purchased a 'smart' car that was stupid enough to get into such a situation, I would ask for my money back. That's assuming I survived the crash.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
-
Not making a choice is a choice as well. But what if the computer has two options: -Keep driving ahead and kill x pedestrians. ('do nothing') -Steer the car into the nearest tree and kill y passengers. All other possibilities have been evaluated and determined to be physically impossible. (speed too high, braking distance too short, trees on both sides of the road, etc) What should the computer do when there is no 'do nothing'? If the decision of who is killed cannot be made by a computer then it must be escalated to a human. But to which human? -The passengers? -The pedestrians? Both have a personal interest in the decision so neither can be trusted to be fair. Maybe the decision should be deferred to an impartial referee? The computer could warn a government official, present him with all relevant data and then let him make a choice. Or make the decision through a democratic process. Ask a large number of responsible citizens what action hould be taken and then take the most popular course of action. This can be done with modern technology. Just get a notification on your smartphone with a small animation of each option and then tap the one you favor. You could even disguise it as a game.
jeroen1304 wrote:
But what if the computer has two options:
-Keep driving ahead and kill x pedestrians. ('do nothing') -Steer the car into the nearest tree and kill y passengers.Exactly this was the question in the article ...
Quote:
jeroen1304 wrote:
All other possibilities have been evaluated and determined to be physically impossible. (speed too high, braking distance too short, trees on both sides of the road, etc)
jeroen1304 wrote:
make the decision through a democratic process. Ask a large number of responsible citizens what action hould be taken and then take the most popular course of action.
You cannot take this route, 'cause there is no time for it. The decision has to be made in fractions of the next second.
-
Should Robot Cars Be Programmed To Kill You If It Will Save More Lives? [^]
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
I better stop kicking the tires. :-D
-
I'd rather it spent its cycles slowing the car.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
I believe the assumption is that it is beyond that - the accident is going to happen.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
mark merrens wrote:
I don't see why anyone would be upset about this unless they simply reacted without thinking.
Well you can be their beta tester. Have fun!
Jeremy Falcon
Surely the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
I think this is a spurious situation, arising from our innate tendency to anthropomorphise the 'robot'. I don't believe any robot car will ever* be programmed to make this sort of decision in this way. A car will never be able to know who the passengers of another car are, for privacy reasons. They will be (are?) programmed to do everything possible to safely avoid a collision. If the anti-collision routines of both cars cannot avoid colliding, the severity of the crash should be vastly diminished (via braking, evasive action etc. faster than any human could). On some very rare occasions (barring programming errors) a serious crash will be unavoidable, and will occur. A car will never* make any decision about the people riding in it, or in any other vehicle. * at least until a sentient AI is created.
Yeah, think that was pretty much already said.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
This is really interesting, and was already debated (to some extent) with the Law Zero[^] added to the initial three Laws of Asimov. Practically, there is a huge information difference required to be able to fullfill Law Zero and Law One : You can evaluate easily the facts for one or a bunch of people in a car, but for humanity ? Maybe one of the people that is killed because of the AI decision would have had a big influence on hunanity's destiny (because he was a researcher or a dictator, etc...) So we see that all 4 laws are required for the decision to be the fairest possible, but law 0 cannot be easily implemented. This law would be also the one required to answer properly the question in your post.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
Indeed though I think everyone is overthinking this. The bots will do everything to prevent an accident and I doubt that they would ever be given the power to decide if the occupants of car a will live and those of car b die. Still, it's fun to discuss the possibilities.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
Indeed though I think everyone is overthinking this. The bots will do everything to prevent an accident and I doubt that they would ever be given the power to decide if the occupants of car a will live and those of car b die. Still, it's fun to discuss the possibilities.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
I think the car technology will improve safety long before the AI will be able to decide about one's fate, so there are odds that the situation of having to make the choice will never happen.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
Surely the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
mark merrens wrote:
Surely the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one?
Not always, and giving a car the power of God, when a car can't feel compassion or anything for that matter is a bad idea. I'd rather have one person saved that actually did something useful for the world than 5 that were freeloaders. Acting like the issue is so cut and dry is a very primitive way of looking at life.
mark merrens wrote:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."
Hey at least we agree on this!
Jeremy Falcon
-
Should Robot Cars Be Programmed To Kill You If It Will Save More Lives? [^]
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
"Save the girl!" I doubt we'll ever be able to program all factors that should be considered into that equation of who should die and who is worth preserving. Worse, as soon as that gets programmed into cars, someone somewhere will abuse it by deciding that their life is more valuable than N others and force that to get written into the programming. I don't so much mean individuals, as classes of people -- should we preserve doctors over McDonalds clerks, or political leaders over soldiers? No, cars (or robots in general) should not make these kinds of value-of-human-life decisions. They're better left to us humans, who will make them with incomplete information and totally subjectively, just like we've always done.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
mark merrens wrote:
Surely the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one?
Not always, and giving a car the power of God, when a car can't feel compassion or anything for that matter is a bad idea. I'd rather have one person saved that actually did something useful for the world than 5 that were freeloaders. Acting like the issue is so cut and dry is a very primitive way of looking at life.
mark merrens wrote:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."
Hey at least we agree on this!
Jeremy Falcon
I think you're being a luddite. I can't see what difference it makes: would you rather leave it to chance?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
"Save the girl!" I doubt we'll ever be able to program all factors that should be considered into that equation of who should die and who is worth preserving. Worse, as soon as that gets programmed into cars, someone somewhere will abuse it by deciding that their life is more valuable than N others and force that to get written into the programming. I don't so much mean individuals, as classes of people -- should we preserve doctors over McDonalds clerks, or political leaders over soldiers? No, cars (or robots in general) should not make these kinds of value-of-human-life decisions. They're better left to us humans, who will make them with incomplete information and totally subjectively, just like we've always done.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
patbob wrote:
No, cars (or robots in general) should not make these kinds of value-of-human-life decisions.
Why? what difference does it make. In any case, I believe it will happen as more and more cars become 'intelligent' and especially when they no longer require human interference. You get in and tell it where you want to go, sit back and read a book or watch a movie. The reality is that, except under the most randomly freakish conditions, there are unlikely to be any more vehicular accidents once the bots take charge.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
I think you're being a luddite. I can't see what difference it makes: would you rather leave it to chance?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
mark merrens wrote:
I think you're being a luddite. I can't see what difference it makes: would you rather leave it to chance?
And I know you're being blind and shortsighted. Might want to go experience more life then try again.
Jeremy Falcon
-
mark merrens wrote:
I think you're being a luddite. I can't see what difference it makes: would you rather leave it to chance?
And I know you're being blind and shortsighted. Might want to go experience more life then try again.
Jeremy Falcon
Quote:
And I know you're being blind and shortsighted. Might want to go experience more life then try again.
What? Have you not understood any of this? Apparently not!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
Quote:
And I know you're being blind and shortsighted. Might want to go experience more life then try again.
What? Have you not understood any of this? Apparently not!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
mark merrens wrote:
What? Have you not understood any of this? Apparently not!
If that's what you must believe to rationalize your point of view, go right on ahead blind man.
Jeremy Falcon
-
mark merrens wrote:
What? Have you not understood any of this? Apparently not!
If that's what you must believe to rationalize your point of view, go right on ahead blind man.
Jeremy Falcon
a) the fact that you are getting personal shows the weakness of your point of view and b) you appear to have gone off an some sort of tangent. What, exactly, is your objection to robots, under very specific circumstances, deciding that the result of an accident could be somewhat mitigated (i.e. more people will live) by taking a specific course of action at the last moment. How is this any worse than maintaining that blind luck and chance are a better arbiter? Is your objection that technology is soulless and shouldn't be allowed to decide the fate of humans?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
-
a) the fact that you are getting personal shows the weakness of your point of view and b) you appear to have gone off an some sort of tangent. What, exactly, is your objection to robots, under very specific circumstances, deciding that the result of an accident could be somewhat mitigated (i.e. more people will live) by taking a specific course of action at the last moment. How is this any worse than maintaining that blind luck and chance are a better arbiter? Is your objection that technology is soulless and shouldn't be allowed to decide the fate of humans?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me me, in pictures
mark merrens wrote:
a) the fact that you are getting personal shows the weakness of your point of view
Ok, this is my last reply since you obviously would rather argue than learn. God this sounds childish, so shame on me for entertaining you this far. My bad. But, you got personal first. Duh. What a waste of time.
mark merrens wrote:
you appear to have gone off an some sort of tangent.
Of course it seems like that, you're shortsighted and blind. What else would it seem to someone who has very little life experience? Instead of arguing you could say "I don't get it", then I'd explain or attempt to or we could agree to disagree instead of acting like children. But no, I'm a luddite. That's the easy way out to avoid thinking. That must be it. A programmer that hates technology. Makes sense.
mark merrens wrote:
How is this any worse than maintaining that blind luck and chance are a better arbiter?
You really are blind man. You need to step away from computers for a while to see the rest of the world you're blind in if you honestly can't see it. Seriously man. This ain't an insult no matter how you want to take it, it's saying you really need to open your eyes. This does not mean one hates technology in doing do so but in not doing that one has a very limited view of the world that impossible to see behind a computer screen.
mark merrens wrote:
Is your objection that technology is soulless and shouldn't be allowed to decide the fate of humans?
Yeah, I'm soulless for defending the only thing with a soul. And you're not because you think something soulless should exercise the right as to whether or not a soul should exist. :rolleyes: Have fun not learning. Bye bye now!
Jeremy Falcon
