The ethical dilemma of self-driving cars - Patrick Lin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/less...
Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets today. And while these cars will ultimately be safer and cleaner than their manual counterparts, they can’t completely avoid accidents altogether. How should the car be programmed if it encounters an unavoidable accident? Patrick Lin navigates the murky ethics of self-driving cars.
Lesson by Patrick Lin, animation by Yukai Du.
Allow self driving vehicles to communicate with one another. That way, in such a scenario, multiple vehicles could work in unison to allow a safe pathway out for the car in danger. This would, of course, require very rapid communication between the vehicles. It would significantly lower the chances of this happening, but not prevent it in every instance.
+Jacob Harrison But in this scenario outlined above, all the other vehicles are driven manually (the SUV is ambiguous), so that still leaves us with the dilemma.
+Jacob Harrison That's a great idea, but we still have to account for people who can't afford self driving vehicles.
+Jacob Harrison That do not solve the problem. First of all in first stage we want to self-driving cars and normal human drive cars to share the same roads. Maybe in the future it will be illegal to drive your own car, but for now we want to have an option. Secondly as you mention it will only lower the chances of accident to occur. There still will be some accidents so we need to solve this ethical dilemma.
+Jacob Harrison
but we still would need to answer those moral dilemmas because its not just about cars, a kid can run on the road
+I Don't Like Spam A very good point indeed
The system should deploy its hidden rocket launchers to blow the boxes up.
@Patrik VV. LOL
100th!
Bruh this isnt a freaking 007 movie in irl
Additional dilemma consideration for you now, those boxes have kittens inside..
@@isaaca9123 but won't those kittens die anyway in such situation?
I've gone over this very topic several times in the last few years and have come to the same conclusion each time. The only ethical way of handling accidents with self-driving cars is for each of them to prioritize the lives of people *outside* of the car. That means they will always choose to put passengers in danger before putting outsiders in danger. This way, it's the passenger's conscious decision to trust their life to a car the moment they enter it.
+Lutranereis Very well put. Using a self driving car would imply accepting responsibility for the decisions the car makes on the road. This is why you'll still always need to be alert, and able to override the controls in the event that you don't agree with the decisions the car is making.
This is very true Lutranereis but more technology to make the rider more safe as well would make your theory perfect
+Lutranereis Well, if company A offers the car you suggested and company B offers a car that saves the occupant then I'm going to buy from company B.
Of course you could have the government force company B to act like company A, but government regulation of the economy is always immoral in the first place.
+Xezarious42 This could be regulated by holding the driver responsible for the decisions the self driving car makes. Company B's cars would inherently be more prone to cause harm to others, even if they're slightly safer for the occupants. Occupants of company B's cars would thus suffer more liability on account of their car's decisions in the long run.
The argument only works in a scenario where you could be severely hurt and would rather sacrifice someone else to minimize your harm. But you could never predict that if you buy company A's car it would save your life and company B's car will get you killed. Both companies would have good safety track records if self driving cars become common.
Ultimately people will choose the car that is least likely to hurt someone or cause damage regardless of if it's self driving or not, because they're responsible for that damage.
+Xezarious42 "government regulation of the economy is always immoral in the first place." Lol.
Unfortunately in the end the decision will probably be financial. Who do I hit to minimize the expected liability.
It would be financial, but it wouldn't be about liability. People aren't going to buy a car that prioritizes causing minimal damage over the life of the driver. And they can't really be blamed for that since some people will have their kids in the car. So that will more than likely be what would happen.
I think the biggest hurtle will be getting through the phase when both kinds of cars exist. When all cars are self-driving and especially if they can coordinate with some central controller accidents will probably be almost non-existent that it really doesn't matter which way you go. However in that phase I expect huge incentives to switch to self-driving cars, for one thing your insurance premiums will likely be much much lower, much so to justify the cost of upgrading your car.
+purpandorange It depends on how public the information on this niche case is. If it becomes a selling point for cars then what you said will be true, but if it's hidden away in the code and nobody but the producers are even really aware of it, then FortNikitaBullion's idea is totally plausible.
That's my fear🤧
With a set standard of having to prioritise minimal casualties and then minimal damage, either set by a group or government regulation, I think that could be avoided almost entirely.
It's a bad system that would allow itself to be boxed in in the first place. If there are no contingencies, create contingencies. This is especially true once all cars are automated and are all just part of a larger system. All should be able to compensate for any other under any circumstance.
+Abraxis86 Agreed. The only unavoidable accident I can imagine is one not caused by other vehicles. Like, say, a piano falling from a tall building in front of the car.
+Abraxis86
still a kid can run on the road
+jed92y wildlife (think big elk) jumping on the road, pedesterians, ect
I mean, I think you guys are kinda helping my point. Neither of those situations are caused by other vehicles. But honestly, I think there is technology that can be used to mitigate risk from those types of situation. Thermal cameras, for example, would probably go a long way to preventing those. Traveling slowly in high pedestrian areas, which is already in effect, but with far better attention and response from an AI car versus a human. Redesigning roadways is another possibility, like creating animal crossings under major roadways, already being done in a lot of places. There are solutions for almost any situation that you can think of.
jed92y it doesnt matter programmers will still be faced with this dilemma because not every road in the world is going to be immune to wildlife or even has the funds to completely reinnovate their infrastructure...
I predict that future cars will continually be made structurally stronger and safer for occupants during a crash instead of having programs to tell it to swerve.
+boy638 there still will be accidents
Did I say accidents will never happen? haha
+boy638
but we have those cars today, which means we nee to answer those questions now ;)
+boy638 Well what is your point then? Don't come here and find a "solution" and say the "solution" isn't a solution.
+boy638 I understand your point. The question is, to what extent is 'stronger and safer'? What if the truck in front of them were carrying blocks of concrete? What about logs of wood? Or if they were to spill industrial chemicals down your car? Would 'facing the obstacle' still be a choice or would swerving and 'avoiding it' be much more safer?
The colours in this video are INCREDIBLE!
In the video, the man said that if we were driving in that boxed in car in manual mode and which ever way we react, it will be understood as just a reaction and not a deliberate decision. Self driving cars are said to be predicted in reducing traffic accidents and fatalities by removing human error from the equation and there can also be other benefits like decreased harmful emissions and minimize unproductive and stressful driving times. This video is talking about the ethical dilemma of self driving cars. He also mentioned that could it be the case that a random decision is still better than a determined one designed to minimize harm. I think that it is telling us about making our own decisions, the correct reaction and response and helping us learn about technology ethics and that although reality sometimes may not play like our thought experiments but it is not the point because they're designed to isolate and stress test our intuition on ethics.
Everything you said is true, but ending the video there does more harm than good. Firstly, these issues aren't specific to self-driving cars; a human would also struggle. Secondly, more emphasis should be placed on the fact that self-driving cars objectively kill fewer people
This is why vehicle to vehicle communication is SO important. If a car can communicate with all other vehicles in its vicinity and those vehicles react to one another, together they can find a way to minimise damage for everyone involved.
but at some point, some computer has to make a decision: who's life is prioritized in the event of unavoidable catostrophe? And at that point, should the decision lie with the autonomous machine or the human? It is a case of real life trolley-problem that we will soon face.
yea this lowers the chance of a crash happening, but does not take into account pedestrians walking road conditions etc. so the ethical decisions still have to be programmed and we still have the same issue.
Well if you can decide whats ethically correct...well normally if it'd be random anyways, than just program the car to have a random response.
+manuthePROcrastinator You're still programming it to kill, albeit randomly :P
+manuthePROcrastinator You're still programming it to kill, albeit randomly :P
+manuthePROcrastinator If car A is random and car B saves the occupant I'm going to buy car B though.
+Bryan Grünauer Chagas
No choice but to technically be programming it to kill, but at least with this method there would be no bias or discrimination.
*****
There will always be the possibility of manually driven cars on the road, and a system like the one you're proposing would be crazy difficult and time consuming to implement throughout multiple car companies' products.
The best choice for the car manufacturers would be randomized decision making
Each case would have equal probability of happening
In simple words if the same scenario is repeated 3 time , each outcome will have a probability of 33%
Nope. I don’t think that will be right decision. Would you bet your life ( quite literally ) on the outcome of a coin toss ? I know I won’t. So we have to come to conclusion to what the priority will be.
This is literally betting lifes Lmao ☠️
Interesting point near the end: If we don't want to make all these tough decisions, we could still just use a randomizer.
Dark and dangerous times lie ahead.
same thing I said
That's actually pretty fascinating and crazy because you're directly defining "ethics" and the futuree
What I learned from this: Don't tailgate semis while in a self driving car.
I'm still not understanding why it wont hit the brakes ..
Cause even if it does it's speed will carry it into the cargo regardless. It's either bang up the front of your car or swerve into the surrounding traffic. Besides the situation is purely theoretical in the first place
Actually it should have enough room to stop, because the boxes are not coming to a dead stop as they fall out the truck, they are just decelerating. Your car is able to decelerate faster if your not tailgating.
Eh... as soon as they hit the road, they would slow down significantly, even if they do roll a little. The car is depicted relatively close to the truck, so there's a good chance that they'd hit the car before it would come to a complete stop. Though, either way, it still is a theoretical scenario... you get the point it's trying to make.
The real question is: why do we choose not to choose. I mean, the current state is worst than any motorcycle with or without a helmet.
If we think only on these scenario, the algorithym controlling the vehicle will be in serious trouble, but we need to see these on differents perspectives. I think we need to understand that we are not perfect and we can not create a perfect algorithym or a sum of algorithyms that prevent all scenarios. I think we should work in various aspects such as driving lesson, practical test to get drivers licenses and laws to produce vehicles with safety measures. The statistics among many countries show which are the primary causes of car accidents, these can help to programm the algorithyms by focussing on those. I also think that every live matters but one of the reasons of car accidents is the huge number of vehicles on the streets, what i'm saying is that we are yet far from having a year without car accidents with or without self-driving cars.
this may seem pretentious and a little hard to grasp but the "random reaction" that humans make isn't really random, isn't it? there's a lot that goes in our actions that is explicitly decisive in our subconscious and not in our conscious mind. what a lot of us consider instinct and/or intuition isn't really that, is it? it's a lot of moving parts that we take into account and act accordingly. that's why objectively correct decision making can feel off and how when there's a missing piece in a situation, it can likewise feels off without us knowing the better. idk im rambling, food for thought?
Self driving cars are openly a future now. The only question is how manufacturer companies and governments make them more safer and ability to avoid accidental situations.
I think a good solution would be to have an "emergency" button where you can press to take over. Then if there's an accident it'll be considered a reaction
Except you would only think to press that button when you’re actually about to crash. And unless you have inhuman reaction speeds, it’s probably too late to do anything.
SDV's should always maintain a possible safe option if things went sideways.. This could be achieved by communicating with all the other vehicles and their combined intelligence.. So if the box fell from the vehicle in front, instead of running over another vehicle, it predict that and already find a sweet spot
The answers are obvious: The car will do everything in it's power to save it's occupants, but it will never deliberately hurt someone else to do so. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, if the cars could communicate and connect with other self driving cars (within a certain range), they could coordinate to avoid accidents--for example, the car on the left could move and give room to the central car, etc.
I disagree I don't think the answer is obvious. The car may do everything it can to save the occupants if thats how its programmed and what about if the car will do everything it can to prevent a major accident however in doing so could cost the occupants their lives? You say that the car will never deliberately hurt someone to save the occupants but you have absolutely no way of knowing that for sure. The video already demonstrates this that what if the only way for the car to protect to you is to purposely slam into someone else? That is deliberate. The cars communicating with each other is a good idea and again what if there is something that that AI cannot do or the AI calculates that if the car moves to the left it could cause another huge accident? Is it more important to protect the occupants or reduce the severity of an accident regardless of risk to occupants?
In this simple variant case: give a factor for each option (diferrent degrees of "importance") and then run a fairly quick randomisation for the output choice (with consideration of factors). I assume something similar would a human driver do.
Thank you.
AI ≠ humans reactions.
If this was the case we would purposely be betting lives, since you can't fully control what a human would do in this kind of situation, some would even change their decisions If the could go back an reedo
Unless this is Final Destination the choice should be allow your car to get hit. Most modern cars can protect the driver from quite a lot of damage. Causing collateral damage to another car is not needed and a pedestrian/motorcycle is right out.
The choice is clear in this situation but it is still a very valid question. Maybe everyone should brush up on probabilities… and drive a bit slower/farther from each other. Maybe require a driving test every 5 or 10 years? Food for thought in any case.
If everybody buys a car that will always protect you then there’s fatalities are none
couldnt the car just brake
This is basically the trolley problem
Simple, the car communicates with the cars on the right, and all cars to the right shimmy a little bit to the right, the rightmost car being on the road shoulder, to accommodate space for the original right-dodging car to avoid the objects. All this happens in less than a split second.
If I was the programmer, I would introduce a setting that lets the action be chosen if the situation happens. I will make it configurable.
Key problem with this: You are now assuming that people will be paying attention to the road in a self-driving vehicle, and not say: Reading, playing with their electronics, taking a nap etc. Youre assuming that they will have the ability to notice and react in time even they have the ability to manual override.
@@ACertainGuy0 The driver will be able to configure the behavior of the car before driving it.
Surely it can just break and swerve to the left just missing the SUV
luke
Brake not break
that will hit the person behind you
Controlling both the car in the left & the motorcycle in the left with the car in the middle as well as front and behind would solve the dilemma and also could revolutionize the traffic
Can’t get over the fact that he said PIN-alizing 😂
we need a standard that all self driving cars use, a standard in which they can all communicate with each other
안녕 얘들아
ㅎㅇ
ㅎㅇ
이거지
One problem is the transition between, at the start self driving cars will be more dangerous until most people get one and its considered "dangerous" to not own one :/
Extremely easy to answer, in this hypothetical future all vehicles are interconnected. Just have the car send an emergency signal to nearby vehicles so they move out of the way so that our car can move to safety, that's the beauty of swarm systems of vehicles.
what if this happens before that happens
0:55
The self-driving car should slam on the brakes for a bit, *and then downshift until you spin out*
Answer: The driver and workers in the truck should secure the objects before they even leave their factory/port/production area.
If every other car on the road is also autonomous, it's likely that there is no accident at all, as all surrounding cars and cars behind the truck would all work in a coordinated fashion to avoid a collision
The things fell off that truck. So, there _will_ be an accident.
Knowing the right answer to these dilemmas involves advanced programming and knowledge, something that autonomous cars won't have for a long time. The only goal here would be to minimize damage as much as possible. For example, say a deer ran in front of a car. If the car knew it could hit the deer and take the least collateral damage that way, then it should do it. More importantly, if there is no occupant the goal should be to save human lives as much as possible. Additionally, if there are more occupants or children in one vehicle compared to another, this could be another factor helping to make the best decision.
I would like to think that in the future self-driving cars would communicate with each other. So they would be leaving room or working together to avoid collisions.
The IEC will define the standard for self driving cars. So whatever the standard says would be implemented
The car will follow the traffic rules. It will minimize harm to the driver but still follow the rules of traffic. It will not start an internal AI based ethical dilemma debate in the 1/10th second it has to react to the data. So if a crash can't be avoided, it will not kill an old lady on the curb because she seem to worth less to society then the young driver of the car (except she is the CEO of a big company and important to keep thousand of jobs... better use face recognition software and google to check her profile in that split second...).
It will slow down as much as possible with a quicker reaction time any human has. So in reality the system will prevent a crash from happening in the first place by reacting to events you can't even see with your eyes but the radar detects.
F. S. Ha ha, if they go with face recognition, I imagine teens will go out wearing masks of famous people and jumping in front of cars, trying to see who the car will choose to "save".
iwasfrancisd Yeah, because that would help them. You can't wear the mask all day long and if you do, you are identified by that mask and your cloths and the home you left from. If a teen does jump in front of a self driving car it would be identical to a teen jumping in front of a car with a regular driver now. If the driver can break early enough the result will just be some angry shouting and if he teen gets crushed it won't be the drivers fault. Driverless cars then can even prove that it was 100% the fault of the dead teenager and the car won't have post traumatic stress problems like a real human. So a win-win for driverless cars.
F. S. Not for protection, but for fun. Like a future version of "Running of the Bulls".
iwasfrancisd Well, if some teens want to win the Darwin Award they can and will do so. Self driving cars won't change that one way or the other.
I like the freedom of driving my own car. I don't know why people are so embracing about having a freedom of control they have right now, taken away from them.
It's not about choosing who to penalize in the attempt to make a wise decision, It's about finding a way fo keep the passenger safe without harming the rest. Big dilemma, not too many solutions.
if all of the people on that road were using autonomous cars, they would all be maintaining the security distance between them and be able to break all simultaneously one after another because the distance in between every car is making smaller. By doing so the risk of the incident would be diminished at almost 0%. This is indeed an easy explanation of how the entire situation should work; because what if there are just around 10 to 35 autonomous car on the road and all the others aren't, and what if those that aren't using autonomous cars are driving too close to other cars, unfortunately, accidents aren't things that can be predictable, but we might be able to develop an evolved enough system to take the percentage down as far as possible.
We should indeed have the power to do so, but maybe not the money, we'll see what the future have for us in terms of cars, I guess that autonomous cars will be taking over in 5-6 years.
The car wouldn't decide 'Which person or object should I hit to avoid this accident?' It would take a better look at the situation and think 'Which direction can I take to minimize damage?' That includes distance and speed of all vehicles around it, speed and angle at which the boxes fell off of the truck, speed of the car itself and other surroundings. This video is asking the wrong question. Not "Which is better" but instead "How can I avoid this"
I would buy the car that saves me, assuming that everyone else bought it. If my car decides to crash into another vehicle, that other vehicle would also decide to protect its owner and the snowball effect would happen. This possibly allows us to not kill anyone because of self-preservation.
this is a fallacy, giving me just three options.
It's not a fallacy, but a legitimate question that has to be answered when programming automated systems.
What about self driving trucks to prevent this problem in the first place ?
Then??? Turn left or right?
What we actually need, is a harmony btn policy makers and car manufacturers...
Policymakers can declare different lanes for different types of cars, like the cargo and passenger lanes for thus example...
The car manufacturers can make (self driven of course) follow those instructions no matter what...
An AI dashboard cop, than a roadside one😶😶
These choices aren’t made by the machines in this case but by the people
Honestly, i feel if we invest more in public transport, we wouldcrarely need cars
“Hit the break”
The shortest ted ed video ever
The dilemma is a mute point. In a world of self driving cars, the car next to you would self driving too. All cars would communicate. Therefore as your car needed to swerve, the car you're going toward will speed up, slow down, or swerve. And the cars around that car would do the same.
or program the car so that it avoids getting boxed up. Which is exactly how everyone should be driving.
if there is always a free escape space, you'll be prepared for unexpected events.
If we had the technology to have self-driving cars, don't you think that they would be able to communicate. That sounds absurd but many devices already do it, therefore eradicating this problem
Why don't you have the option to have pre-programmed choices that the owner of the car could chose how the car reacts. That way the liability and the choices still rest on the owners shoulder and the car would be more costamizable
this scenario ONLY considers the way a human brain works and make decision. What autonomous driving COULD allow is that the car will NOT have to make this decision, as it ALREADY LONG ago, analyzed all these possible scenarios and already anticipated the plausible accident, including the right distance, the right speed and the right trajectories, PLUS, a thing humans can NOT do, is sharing in real time their experience and data with the entire network in seconds and in real time. Meaning that the more autonomous driven, the more collected data, the more precise will be each prediction. We will NOT have to make a choice, we will have to make them GOOD enough. I've been teaching in the automotive business for 16 years and I'm always amazed to see the reaction of the public when you ask: how many percent of human failures are considered in today's accidents? people answer in average 95-98%. When you tell them that with autonous driving, we could reduce to less than 0.01% the risk of accident, they still prefer to drive... Mind blowing.
seems like the option to Stop is not available in self driving cars, then I'm scared. I think that although plausible, these ethical issues are overwhelmingly extrapolated and it just seems like they're trying to stop self driven cars from being produced, not to contribute to the advancement of technology
I am so surprised by how many people in the comments section here are trying to "outwit" this dilemma situation. "Use the help of the other self-driving cars" or "why would it happen if the car itself is able to measure out a safe distance." Your thinking is too specific. Think in broad terms.
This type of accident can happen anytime and and any place despite the most advanced of technology. What if a random person happened to be riding his skateboard and rolled off onto the road due to an icy trail? Because humans are not without error. To get rid of error, you get rid of humans. So the smartest thing would be to tackle this problem through ethical questioning, not pinpointing flaws in a specific scenario.
I've heard this before, the car could ask questions (through computer) such as this. For example if the person in the first dilemma set his car to hit the SUV the car would hit the SUV in a situation like that. I don't think self driving cars should exist either way
In watchdogs 2 they talk about this but in typical fashion there is corruption where each person has a certain value which allows it to figure who is better alive.
You can't support an opinion or idea by applying it to a situation what was imagined up in order to support said opinion or idea.
Will some be able to purchase VIP status to guarantee that programs for self-driving cars are written to never hit them?
Since the answer is so debated i think it would be better for these cars to have a setting to be chosen by the owner of the car
Everyone should sue the autonomous vehicle provider for not programming in the keeping of a safety distance from the front trailer so that a safe braking can be executed. The rest of the suppositions are just a waste of time. One should not determine the capabilities of networked autonomous vehicles that can move in tandom with the limited perspective and reaction time of a single individual human.
Cant the car just stop
Self driving cars does not mean that that the driver should be care free he should observe the road too and there should be a emergency break in unprogrammed situataions
The way most "self drive" systems work now tend to lead to the motorbike rider getting hit compared to suv or braking to mitigate accidents. This is purely due to the tech not accurately picking up the smaller profile of motorcycle riders at all times
Regardless of who dies the blame lies squarely upon the truck operator for transporting all that weight in an unsafe manner. In this case then the car well choose to kill one person instead of three.
This would be a total non issue when all vehicles on the road are connected to a hive mind. Or atleast electronic enough to sense a disturbance around them and react in time.
Even if this is an actual issue, there may be an accident whose probability is perhaps 1in a hundred thousand. But with the present system of cars with human drivers, we have millions dying around the world every year. No new tech has only advantages. We can always improvise it. But by delaying to bring these to action we are not coming to any solution for the actual problem, that is, death by negligence of human drivers.
The car should apply the brakes to slow down as much as possible and collide with the fallen object. If it's not tailgating then it should have enough time to slow down significantly and minimise any damage.
one thing that bugs me, what if the self driving car have a braking system that when detecting any stopped object it will brake for them?
This video is 7yrs old!
Why's the windshield still made of glass?
If the vehicles couldn't communicate with each other enough, I would probably say that the vehicle should cause no harm to others without their permission. As the vehicle owner has agreed to the terms of the car (to not cause harm to others without their permission), the vehicle should be expected to go into the vehicle with the large heavy objects falling off it. If they have given permission, then maybe the car should prioritise the rider, and crash into the one who gave permission to be harmed.
But all this assumes that only your car has self-driving capabilities. If there was an instident with car A meaning it would have to swerve into car B car B will detect it and also take actions.
Or cars communicate with near by cars So car A detects an obstruction Car B and C along with the truck can move in such a way to keep things safe and minimus damage.
I am a Software developer, and I realised what this video is about just from the Caption.
And being a Software developer, I gave the same solution.... Random Draw...!
What if you just picked a random number and ram into them?
Just have the car break. It doesn't need to hit anyone. Drive at your own risk. Makes sense to me.
I dont understand the assumption that you are allowed to careen into another vehicle to avoid a sudden oncoming collision. As the operator of a vehicle, you are responsible for everything that you hit, whether out of a sudden reaction or not. If I cant hit another vehicle to prevent a collision, than neither can my car. Autonomous cars should just brake and any attempt to swerve should be at the discretion of the operator, who is legally required to be aware of the situation even if the car is autonomous. At least for now.
Sick video! Really good! Had to watch this in IN1030 in the university of Oslo, and it was a really entertaining situation. BTW I'm from Norway æøå!!
What's IN1030?
Its a world of self driving cars but heavy objects qare just randomlly falling off trucks
how about the self driving car follows the rules of the road, and has however many car lengths to the speed its traveling. Then it can have enough time to stop before it crashes.
If you get to the point of making self driving cars you must be able to ensure proper protection to passengers, right? Foolish mortals smh
Why are hitting the other cars/commuters the main options in this video? Doing so creates a potential chain reaction that gets out of control that no one or computer will be able to predict. Obviously, in this scenario, the answer is for the self-driving car to slow down as best as possible and navigate within its own lane to avoid the fallen object or hit it as safely as possible. This seems to be the only option that possibly makes sense... Hurting/running into other people isn't really an option regardless of the situation you are in.
Self driving cars will not ease road congestion but worsen it. Have you ever heard of induced demand?
I’d just jump out and shout
Let’s see what my car does
Why can't they use RNG? It does feel pretty bad when you lose a game because of RNG, so losing your life probably feels worse. Is that dilemma really that hard to solve?
Couldn't cars be engineered to not be in danger due to a crash then the best option would be to keep driving forward as the car is not at risk.
The ultimate fallback is each vehicle protects its own occupants. That's underneath alllll the other layers, for sure. But ultimately they should act as an agent for their occupants not judges. That seems to be a sustainable and scalable morally simple heuristic. Also, maybe, if they all do that then collectively that is also optimal.
Mrs Richards "I paid for a room with a view !"
Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam."
Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!"
Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..."
Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!"
Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky."
Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction."
Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?
soooo a more modern version of the trolley problem?
At the end of the video, (3:50) the car is driving wrong.
The answer is simple.Just brake as hard as possible while swirling to the side of the motorcycle(the one with the helmet in the second case) since bikes don't take up much space so you have a low chance of hitting the bike.
A true professional human driver would never swerve. If your courageous enough, the correct answer is try to achieve a controlled stop in your lane. Putting others in jeopardy to safe yourself is never the correct answer.
So THAT's why cartoon vehicles have ejector seats.
The grammarly ad at the beginning is really hurting my nerves, I'm not an idiot, I know how to spell and I'm not even an English mother tongue speaker.