Stephen & Mike raise a really excellent question (below). Only a human can assume moral or legal responsibility, so who would be responsible for a death caused by the actions of a vehicle computer?
Candidates include the pollies who mandated use of the technology, the executives of the company who developed it, and even individuals who drive such vehicles. Although it's strictly a legal workaround, perhaps we'd see a situation where driverless technology was legally quarantined if such a thing is constitutionally possible. Where are you Link lawyers and moral philosophers? On 2016-06-08 22:12 Stephen Loosley wrote: > For mine, it'll be a question of the definition of the terms, "work reliably." > > It's a problem, but, I'd prefer that my driverless car was not programmed to > automatically kill my family over multiple others. I suspect they will be. > > For an example think an impending accident on a mountain road between your > family-filled sedan and a bus-load of 20 school excursion kids? Under > political correctness for safety purposes which vehicle goes over the side? > > If a human driver can see a one-in-a-hundred chance of both the vehicles > staying on the road they'd take it. But, could our "road worthy" computer? On 2016-06-09 07:37 Mike wrote: > My concern is that the driving software etc will become so good that it is > made mandatory that it be used at all times, no matter what. That there will > be no option available to the humans involved. And heavy penalties for > disabling or over-riding the system - assuming that in a non-human controlled > vehicle it will be possible to disable the system and take over. David L _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
