Scott:
Just to muddy the waters a little, it is noted the CEO of Mercedes clarified his comments later: Fortune later reported, that Mercedes-Benz said that their CEO, von Hugo, was misquoted. They later sidestepped the question saying the automaker’s official position is that “neither programmers nor automated systems are entitled to weigh the value of human lives,” and that the company is not legally allowed to favor one life over another in Germany and other nations. Interestingly, an earlier study by Bonnefon et al. in <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1514> Science magazine reported that the majority of the people surveyed thought it would be ethically better for autonomous cars to put their occupants at risk rather than crash into pedestrians. I would imagine this to be the view of most pedestrians, cyclists and among ethicists who would point out that the hazard itself is created by the large heavy vehicle traveling at speed (with better occupant protection) and so should bare responsibility. Yet the majority also said they wouldn’t buy autonomous cars if the car prioritized pedestrian safety over their own so it’s a good indication how the industry might want to handle the issue given the freedom to do so. Others have pointed out that the variants to the so-called <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem> Trolley Problem will become less vital if overall relative safety advantages to other road users from autonomous cars are clearly established despite our ethical and legal discomfort with a small fraction of unusual circumstances. I would point out fully autonomous systems are still quite a ways off. They cannot yet drive in snow (though micromapping and positioning makes that theoretically possible), have trouble with detours and unmapped changes, can’t tell a large pothole from a puddle, a dog from a child, and can have problems with shadows and rain. And whether they will find success in the market remains to be seen. People may be emotionally reluctant to hand over control of their vehicles when transport interactions are algorithmically driven. Case in point, assuming cars will be programmed according to each states laws (a nightmare in and of itself) how will motorists feel when their car robots actually do stop at all crossings where a cyclist or pedestrian is waiting to cross (as opposed to current widespread obliviousness to this obligation)? And what about actions where people walk or bike or put objects in front of autonomous traffic just to trigger the avoidance strategies for fun? Personally I think different parts of the smart driving universe will come in piece-meal (like vehicle-to-vehicle communication), or in very specific places like freeways long before we see them allowed without driver oversight on local streets. Cheers, Hank Weiss From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Morris Rose via Bikies Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 10:10 PM To: Bikies <[email protected]> Subject: [Bikies] Mercedes-Benz has a algorithmic solution to the "trolley problem" in the age of self-driving cars In a variant of "the customer is always right" principle, they code to - surprise, surprise, surprise! - save the occupants of the vehicle in favour of any number of pedestrians or other road users. http://blog.caranddriver.com/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrians/ -- S. Rose
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
