On 07/14/2016 02:06 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 13:50 +1000, Brendan wrote:
Yes. It's effectively the trolley problem. Do you throw a fat person
in the way of a runaway trolley in order to save 5 other people?
[]
The fallacy in the argument as it applies to autonomous vehicles is
that autonomous vehicles don't see "people" and cannot weigh outcomes
with any subtlety at all. You can't ask "what should the vehicle do in
this situation" and then load the situation with value judgements. The
result is - a stupid question.
The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with autonomous vehicles making
decisions.
I can only assume that you have not understood.
For example, *assume* some data points:
without autonomous vehicles: 1 million ppl dead: 90% class A/10% class B
with autonomous vehicles: 950,000 ppl dead: 60% class A/ 40% class B
*If presented with this data*, then the choice by *human decision makers* to
allow the vehicles on the road is not only a choice about how many people
are going to die, but it's also a choice about what type of people
(ie class A or class B) they choose to let die.
It's reasonable to assume that certain classes of people will be removed from
accident
statistics - such as young men, suicides and drunks - because now the car is
not being
driven carelessly. If there is a marginal decrease in the overall statistics
then that
means the gains in this group are being offset by losses in some other group.
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
