General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bizman on September 04, 2016, 01:10:57 PM
Title: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Bizman on September 04, 2016, 01:10:57 PM
If you can't avoid either driving through a Pokemon hunter or killing yourself by crashing a wall, what would you do? If there were two of them? If one was pregnant? If...
If you can't avoid either driving through a Pokemon hunter or killing yourself by crashing a wall, what would you do? If there were two of them? If one was pregnant? If...
If no other way and they step out in the street... I would thin the herd.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 04, 2016, 02:55:37 PM
I would never drive a car that would knowingly kill me or risk my life to save others. My priorities are my passengers, then myself... then on a distant third the drunken ****** that stumbles into the street.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Chris79 on September 04, 2016, 03:14:41 PM
Does this vehicle have a cow catcher?
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Ramesis on September 04, 2016, 04:12:53 PM
I would die :devil Ram
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: oakranger on September 04, 2016, 04:58:14 PM
toejam happens.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Devil 505 on September 04, 2016, 05:07:50 PM
The better solution is to never ride in an automated car.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: guncrasher on September 04, 2016, 05:32:48 PM
I would let all the bishops die.
semp
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Shuffler on September 04, 2016, 06:38:43 PM
The better solution is to never ride in an automated car.
They are coming and I imagine that they will be the norm, like automatic transmissions in our life time (and I'm talking us middle aged here).
What you're saying is avoid technology, like the way elevators were shunned and people yelled, "Get a horse!" at the first automobiles.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 04, 2016, 09:21:02 PM
Apples and oranges. Automatic transmissions and elevators are not programmed to kill you in order to save others.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Devil 505 on September 04, 2016, 09:25:54 PM
Not at all Del.
I have 10 years experience as a dealer trained automotive technician who deals regularly with warranty repairs/claims and factory recalls. I have seen many, many problems caused because of the hubris of engineers who believe their designs are infallible. But here's the harsh truth - vehicle components are produced for the lowest price possible and when is comes to public safety, manufacturers (especially American) only care about the risk of lawsuits and the relative cost of fixing a problem vs. costs of litigation. Anyone who deals with automotive computer systems will tell you how prone the components are to failure. And that does not even begin to cover all the other factors which could contribute to a critical failure of a computer controlled system (wear and tear, environment, animals, etc.) The last thing I want is the removal of mechanical control of the vehicle.
Furthermore, an automated vehicle will further invite "drivers" to become distracted to the point of being another passenger. Hell, drivers are distracted too much as it is, the last thing society needs is to believe that the damn car can drive itself.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Randall172 on September 04, 2016, 10:36:05 PM
I have 10 years experience as a dealer trained automotive technician who deals regularly with warranty repairs/claims and factory recalls. I have seen many, many problems caused because of the hubris of engineers who believe their designs are infallible. But here's the harsh truth - vehicle components are produced for the lowest price possible and when is comes to public safety, manufacturers (especially American) only care about the risk of lawsuits and the relative cost of fixing a problem vs. costs of litigation. Anyone who deals with automotive computer systems will tell you how prone the components are to failure. And that does not even begin to cover all the other factors which could contribute to a critical failure of a computer controlled system (wear and tear, environment, animals, etc.) The last thing I want is the removal of mechanical control of the vehicle.
Furthermore, an automated vehicle will further invite "drivers" to become distracted to the point of being another passenger. Hell, drivers are distracted too much as it is, the last thing society needs is to believe that the damn car can drive itself.
20 years tops, first thing to go will be transport jobs. the only things that are really needed is hardware in the road ie, markers on the lanes, and intersection signals that can be read, the way tesla is doing it now is just the beginning.
but on the moral dilemma, its the cars job to keep the occupants safe, and honestly I would refuse to get into a car that would choose to swerve into an obstacle, even if it has to hit baby parade.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Shuffler on September 05, 2016, 12:31:12 AM
I have 10 years experience as a dealer trained automotive technician who deals regularly with warranty repairs/claims and factory recalls. I have seen many, many problems caused because of the hubris of engineers who believe their designs are infallible. But here's the harsh truth - vehicle components are produced for the lowest price possible and when is comes to public safety, manufacturers (especially American) only care about the risk of lawsuits and the relative cost of fixing a problem vs. costs of litigation. Anyone who deals with automotive computer systems will tell you how prone the components are to failure. And that does not even begin to cover all the other factors which could contribute to a critical failure of a computer controlled system (wear and tear, environment, animals, etc.) The last thing I want is the removal of mechanical control of the vehicle.
Furthermore, an automated vehicle will further invite "drivers" to become distracted to the point of being another passenger. Hell, drivers are distracted too much as it is, the last thing society needs is to believe that the damn car can drive itself.
The Titanic was unsinkable.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: nrshida on September 05, 2016, 01:47:18 AM
Some observations, since I’m presently designing in a domain very close to the one being discussed: autonomous vehicles are on the way whether you like it or not because of socio /economic / technological imperatives. This survey is more to throw some of the associated issues into the public domain because legality and morality will both have to be modified to accommodate this new thing.
Stop thinking of the car as an individual. In a peloton of autonomous vehicles your car won’t be. It will be making decisions as part of a network at a rate so fast the actions will be enacted before the occupants have any clue something is happening. Imagine a mini train formed of autonomous vehicles tailgating each other at 100 mph on the highway, all braking and manoeuvring simultaneously while all the occupants in all the cars are having beer or coffee and talking (or more likely, busy with their smartphones). It’s about as far from traditional road transport as you can imagine. Forget everything you’ve learned from that.
the only things that are really needed is hardware in the road ie, markers on the lanes, and intersection signals that can be read, the way tesla is doing it now is just the beginning.
This is actually the wrong war around. The earliest autonomous vehicles took this approach. Citroen had a functioning autonomous DS in the early 1960s which applied this philosophy but the cost of modifying the infrastructure is too high. The autonomous ‘thinking’ and sensing will mostly be onboard with of course some external digital knowledge of traffic conditions, sensor-pooling etc.
I have seen many, many problems caused because of the hubris of engineers who believe their designs are infallible
Interesting observation. Like to discuss your experiences sometime. Engineers ought not be doing the design work in some domains as they presently do. In the building industry for example the tasks are more formally delimited. Of course good engineering should also allow for failures in a failsafe condition, where possible. Accidents will happen regardless.
Regarding the discussion of who should cop it in an emerging accident: presently road accident-related casualties considerably outnumber those caused by wars and murders on a yearly basis. Given the ability / attention / interest in driving of an average human operator, even conceding the fact that humans can use intuition and interpolation AND there will be mixed autonomous / non-autonomous vehicles flowing together do you think the accident rate will go up or down?
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Chalenge on September 05, 2016, 05:09:36 AM
The situations that are dreaming about are very limited in today's America. Sure, you may be able to design an autonomous vehicle for a small section of San Francisco, but only after all other traffic is eliminated. Engineers are still 100 years from an autonomous vehicle for every day life.
Sure, they think they can do it. It's the same arrogance you see out of every new graduate. They know it all!
You drive your light-weight electro-autocar. I'll be driving armor. That's how much I trust your junk.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Bizman on September 05, 2016, 10:52:28 AM
You'd still have to make a decision if you are driving yourself. ;)
Exactly. The big question is what would you do if for example the brakes of your car suddenly failed. Would your choice be better than that of an automated vehicle (or any other robot, for that matter)? And how would you argument your choice?
Whose moral rules should we teach to a machine?
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: nrshida on September 05, 2016, 11:30:54 AM
You drive your light-weight electro-autocar. I'll be driving armor. That's how much I trust your junk.
So wait a minute, do you acually think you and your fellow road users (including pedestrians) are safer in and around a large, heavy, less deformable vehicle such as a Chevy Escalade for example?
Exactly. The big question is what would you do if for example the brakes of your car suddenly failed. Would your choice be better than that of an automated vehicle (or any other robot, for that matter)? And how would you argument your choice?
Whose moral rules should we teach to a machine?
Choosing which crowd of people to pile into is a very borderline and contrived case. It's not so much a moral but legal hold-up at the moment. Presently the buck stops with the driver who is both legally qualified and responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. This includes setting the sunroof of your Tesla to precisely 72% open via the touchscreen interface while doing 70 on the motorway (because people do things like that). If the car is driving then it's Toyota, Ford, Cadillac what-have-you who are responsible for every accident. No car compay is going to willingly shoulder that because some of them have an awful lot of money and everyone knows it.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: zack1234 on September 05, 2016, 12:49:58 PM
Some observations, since I’m presently designing in a domain very close to the one being discussed: autonomous vehicles are on the way whether you like it or not because of socio /economic / technological imperatives. This survey is more to throw some of the associated issues into the public domain because legality and morality will both have to be modified to accommodate this new thing.
Stop thinking of the car as an individual. In a peloton of autonomous vehicles your car won’t be. It will be making decisions as part of a network at a rate so fast the actions will be enacted before the occupants have any clue something is happening. Imagine a mini train formed of autonomous vehicles tailgating each other at 100 mph on the highway, all braking and manoeuvring simultaneously while all the occupants in all the cars are having beer or coffee and talking (or more likely, busy with their smartphones). It’s about as far from traditional road transport as you can imagine. Forget everything you’ve learned from that.
This is actually the wrong war around. The earliest autonomous vehicles took this approach. Citroen had a functioning autonomous DS in the early 1960s which applied this philosophy but the cost of modifying the infrastructure is too high. The autonomous ‘thinking’ and sensing will mostly be onboard with of course some external digital knowledge of traffic conditions, sensor-pooling etc.
Interesting observation. Like to discuss your experiences sometime. Engineers ought not be doing the design work in some domains as they presently do. In the building industry for example the tasks are more formally delimited. Of course good engineering should also allow for failures in a failsafe condition, where possible. Accidents will happen regardless.
Regarding the discussion of who should cop it in an emerging accident: presently road accident-related casualties considerably outnumber those caused by wars and murders on a yearly basis. Given the ability / attention / interest in driving of an average human operator, even conceding the fact that humans can use intuition and interpolation AND there will be mixed autonomous / non-autonomous vehicles flowing together do you think the accident rate will go up or down?
When are you getting a job? :) :)
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Shuffler on September 05, 2016, 07:49:18 PM
Good engineers are few and far between.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Tumor on September 05, 2016, 08:09:00 PM
People in the car should be put at risk, never any pedestrian, for any reason. Everyone involved is on the road that is there for them to use. Only those in the car chose to be there.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: ROC on September 05, 2016, 09:09:03 PM
Quote
autonomous vehicles are on the way whether you like it or not because of socio /economic / technological imperatives.
Didn't read a word past this. BS. Imperative? What on earth is so imperative that taking the individual out of the equation warrants a mandate like this? What a load of absolute marketing drivel. Autonomous vehicles are little more than another attempt at dumbing down the population to make the masses even more easier to manage than they are now. Like it or not? You don't know nearly as much about people as you think :)
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Lusche on September 05, 2016, 09:59:26 PM
What a load of absolute marketing drivel. Autonomous vehicles are little more than another attempt at dumbing down the population to make the masses even more easier to manage than they are now.
LOL
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: nrshida on September 06, 2016, 02:03:49 AM
What on earth is so imperative that taking the individual out of the equation warrants a mandate like this?
There's no mandate, how do you conclude innovation emerges from governmental bodies? They don't have the skillset, training, motivation or personality type to do that. The imperative is simply business in combination with increased safety, efficiency and convenience. Win win combination, especially the money part :)
Do you actually know what the present conception of an autonomous car is and what they are proposing? Some of you seem to be infering they are roving, effeminate, socialist prisons on wheels which the government will force you to buy with your own money and at the push of a button drive you to your local intermnent camp :rofl
Autonomous vehicles are little more than another attempt at dumbing down the population to make the masses even more easier to manage than they are now.
How in the name of Satan's flaming trousers do you come to this conclusion? And where can I get a tinfoil hat from?
Like it or not? You don't know nearly as much about people as you think :)
I didn't claim to know people at all in what I posted, I was discussing what's happening in industry.
Getting beyond weird at this point and well into self-contradicting internal cultural values which are ironically the consequence of careful conditioning by industry and commerce as part of an ongoing cycle. Decades long.
Best of luck resolving that :rofl
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: zack1234 on September 06, 2016, 02:04:51 AM
All these threads are why Funmentalusts everywhere hate western culture :old:
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: nrshida on September 06, 2016, 02:08:26 AM
Zack drives a green Toyota Prius with a 'Russell Brand for World President' bumper sticker on it.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 06, 2016, 02:26:37 AM
People in the car should be put at risk, never any pedestrian, for any reason. Everyone involved is on the road that is there for them to use. Only those in the car chose to be there.
Well... The pedestrian could be on the road. I imagine most killed or injured pedestrians are...
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: HL117 on September 06, 2016, 07:34:26 AM
So you could play AHVI in the back of your autonomous van on the way to and from work, or more likely just take a nap. When can we get one? :cheesy:
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Easyscor on September 06, 2016, 10:11:13 AM
Commercial vehicles were the first to adapt ABS brakes. I'd predict a repeat of that pattern. If fleet owners calculate it will save them time and money they will transition quickly. Their drivers will be government mandated to remain but relegated to the position of a railroad train engineer. You can't put that many people out of work and the other drivers on the roads won't feel safe with 80,000 lb+ driverless vehicles hurtling down the road at them.
As for your pedestrian, I can't imagine getting behind the wheel again if I killed a kid and at my age almost everyone playing pokywhatever qualifies as a kid now.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Delirium on September 06, 2016, 10:17:08 AM
Commercial vehicles were the first to adapt ABS brakes. I'd predict a repeat of that pattern.
Bingo.
I remember people telling me, "I don't want a cellphone! I definitely don't want one that fits in my pocket so the boss or my wife can call me at any hour." This was during the early 1990's when phones were just shredding their large transceivers.
Disagree with me, but I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt driverless cars will become the norm. New innovators like Tesla and Google will form the tip of the spear and in the nearer future the populace will see lanes on the highway dedicated to them (like our high occupancy or commuter lanes).
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Wiley on September 06, 2016, 10:44:13 AM
I'm not fond of letting the car decide who lives and dies. On the other hand, how often is a true Kobayashi Maru scenario going to come up? Ideally the vehicle should have the information and processing power to find someplace safe to go, or be able to see the obstruction soon enough to stop if it suddenly finds all avenues in front of it blocked. A machine's true, balls-out panic stop will likely be only slightly better than a collision for the passengers, but that's still preferable to hitting stuff.
The nice thing about an automaton- it doesn't get distracted or impatient.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Brooke on September 06, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
I'm not fond of letting the car decide who lives and dies. On the other hand, how often is a true Kobayashi Maru scenario going to come up? Ideally the vehicle should have the information and processing power to find someplace safe to go, or be able to see the obstruction soon enough to stop if it suddenly finds all avenues in front of it blocked. A machine's true, balls-out panic stop will likely be only slightly better than a collision for the passengers, but that's still preferable to hitting stuff.
The nice thing about an automaton- it doesn't get distracted or impatient.
Wiley.
I have a 1.3 million dollar laser that has been sidelined for 3 weeks Wednesday..... due to automation and it's breakdowns.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: zack1234 on September 06, 2016, 01:02:24 PM
Disagree with me, but I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt driverless cars will become the norm. New innovators like Tesla and Google will form the tip of the spear and in the nearer future the populace will see lanes on the highway dedicated to them (like our high occupancy or commuter lanes).
I agree. And in those lanes the traffic will be much faster and less subjective to congestion. Comfort, safety, convenience and relative economy is always the way this stuff gets established. Consumers have traditionally paid for that without complaint.
Look at cruise control. I bet a lot of the old stick-in-the-mud nay-sayers drive cars with cruise control. Automous cars will just extend this to everything else. Like cruise control - and something some seem to be unaware of - all of the present concepts allow you to turn the autonomous mode off. You can drive if you want to. Some really interesting projects right now dealing especially with that transition. One example of a retracting steering wheel at 49 seconds:-
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: ghi on September 06, 2016, 02:55:16 PM
I just watched this video, Putin's driver instantly deceased in head on colission on crazy Moscow's streets; Putin was not onboard. Maybe an assasination attempt :noid ; hackers can't take over the brakes, steer, ingition in this new over comptuterized vehicles.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3776086/Vladimir-Putin-s-official-car-involved-head-crash-Moscow-killed-Russian-president-s-favourite-chauffeur.html
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Wiley on September 06, 2016, 02:57:07 PM
I have a 1.3 million dollar laser that has been sidelined for 3 weeks Wednesday..... due to automation and it's breakdowns.
Absolutely. Never said it was perfect, but depending on how well they actually work, I can easily see them being superior to the average human being behind the wheel. Obviously, I am a better driver than any machine, but it's those other people. ;)
Wiley.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: nrshida on September 06, 2016, 03:11:09 PM
Absolutely. Never said it was perfect, but depending on how well they actually work, I can easily see them being superior to the average human being behind the wheel. Obviously, I am a better driver than any machine, but it's those other people. ;)
Some people can out-perform machines Wiley. It's just the average like you say. Have you heard that brilliant story about Fangio in the 1950 Monarco GP? Machines - the way they're presently doing it anyway - don't do intuition.
An interesting point about ABS, I read recently most F1 drivers can outperform even the best ABS systems but like they say, doing it for 50 laps straight is another matter.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Wiley on September 06, 2016, 04:02:39 PM
Some people can out-perform machines Wiley. It's just the average like you say. Have you heard that brilliant story about Fangio in the 1950 Monarco GP? Machines - the way they're presently doing it anyway - don't do intuition.
An interesting point about ABS, I read recently most F1 drivers can outperform even the best ABS systems but like they say, doing it for 50 laps straight is another matter.
Oh sure. To be honest, I really dislike the idea of an automated car. I really don't like my life being in the hands of a software engineer every day on my way into work.
These days though, IMO the vast majority of people do not treat driving as a skill. It is something they do in between finding the right radio station/song on their iPad and talking to other people, either in the vehicle or elsewhere.
The thing is, I don't think automated vehicles will be at their best until they're more or less all automated.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: ROC on September 06, 2016, 04:49:42 PM
Nrshida, like it or not, it's coming. That pretty much set the "mandate" thing going. Did you read your own post?
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: SIK1 on September 06, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
I'm pretty much all for autonomous vehicles. Mainly because a lot of people (at least around here) don't seem to be entirely involved in the task of driving. So their SA is not that of the av, and the best way to avoid and accident is to not get into one in the first place. I do believe that in a life and death situation the human is more likely to make an emotional decision that favors their own survival. Where the machine will make decisions based on mathematical calculations.
:salute Sik
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Shuffler on September 07, 2016, 12:41:13 AM
Absolutely. Never said it was perfect, but depending on how well they actually work, I can easily see them being superior to the average human being behind the wheel. Obviously, I am a better driver than any machine, but it's those other people. ;)
Wiley.
Many average humans do not know that slower traffic should move to the right here in the US. They also have to slow down at every flashing light to look for bodies. Most are stupid drivers.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: zack1234 on September 07, 2016, 12:55:18 AM
Can someone answer the elephant in the room why are they developing self driving cars?
Do governments want to take the human element out of driving?
For safety?
Why would a car company care if you cannot drive properly, if you crash they make more money?
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: nrshida on September 07, 2016, 02:03:28 AM
Can someone answer the elephant in the room why are they developing self driving cars?
Because they can, there's money in it, and they want to, is the short answer. Driving has been de-skilled for decades now. Traction control, stability control, ABS, adaptive cruise control. All sells very well. Then there's the convenience features. From automatic transmissions to electric windows and headlight jetwashers. Those features cost a lot of money to develop and produce. Who's paying for that would you say? Autonomous vehicles are just a natural progression of this line.
What are you crazy?!?!? Have you read some of what I write? Of course not. I type with my eyes closed singing very loudly in my head to block out the bad thoughts. (http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8103/crazy5.gif)
Nrshida, like it or not, it's coming. That pretty much set the "mandate" thing going.
Depends what you mean with mandate. If you mean an ‘an official order or commission to do something’ then no, this originates in industry and academia not government. If you mean ‘authorisation’ to do something then no, legislation always walks behind product development with an innovative content. Look at Tesla’s Model S interface. Same interactions with a phone while driving will get you fined (and rightly so). If you meant ‘mandatory’ then no, it’s optional, although there might be a point far in the future where non-autonomous vehicles are restricted to certain roads’. That’s be far far off though. A tolerant society shouldn’t stop Chalenge driving round in his Model T shaking his fists at everyone. That’d be cruel.
If you had some other meaning intended for that word then you’d have to explain further.
I’m not as arrogant or bombastic as some of my posts might make me out to be. Just this is very close to my area so I'm passionate about it. And I’ve got an allergy to people who are deficient at thinking for themselves but decide they'll think for all of us. I hate that but then we've all got our allergies haven't we?
About design and technology: look at American design in the 1950s and 60s. Was all about excitement in the future. Now what do we have? Retro design, a wish to recapture the 'better' times of the past and an ingrained fear of anything new and unfamiliar. Bit of a sad state of affairs really.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 07, 2016, 04:04:39 AM
Of course there is a market for self-driving cars. For personal transportation, but perhaps mostly for commercial transport. Have a nap while the car drives you home from work. I'd want that. The question being asked here is should your vehicle be allowed to kill you on purpose if certain "moral" circumstances comes up? If so, then I'll take the bus. I'm pretty sure the bus wins the "moral" arithmetic most of the time.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Plawranc on September 07, 2016, 05:05:25 AM
I answered logically, as most people would.
But the issue is. If you ask the same question. And changed the people being killed to people you know personally. It will change the outcome in a 9/10 situation.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: zack1234 on September 07, 2016, 05:31:14 AM
Of course there is a market for self-driving cars. For personal transportation, but perhaps mostly for commercial transport. Have a nap while the car drives you home from work. I'd want that. The question being asked here is should your vehicle be allowed to kill you on purpose if certain "moral" circumstances comes up? If so, then I'll take the bus. I'm pretty sure the bus wins the "moral" arithmetic most of the time.
Build more railways then and get the commercial traffic off the road.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 07, 2016, 06:10:53 AM
And then we get into the systematic issues... Who gets to control the "moral" system? How will we make sure they can't be corrupted like everyone else in power?
So we have a low income family in a low-end autonomous Volvo. Brakes fail and they're set on an unavoidable collision with the limo of the President of the USA... Unless one of them swerve off the road into almost certain death. One family vs. a head of state? ... How about one low-income family in a Volvo vs a Fortune 500 CEO in his Maybach, whose death would have far reaching economic consequences? ... Suddenly we're into the dubious moral question of the relative worth of human lives.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Bizman on September 07, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
But the issue is. If you ask the same question. And changed the people being killed to people you know personally. It will change the outcome in a 9/10 situation.
Heh, I talked with my mother-in-law about this test and threw in some simplified questions like if you can't avoid killing someone with your car, would you let an old or a young one die. "Old". Boss or worker? "Boss". The congregation president or the pastor? "Now that's a tough one...". Your son or daughter/grandson or granddaughter? "Impossible to answer".
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: ghi on September 07, 2016, 10:43:04 AM
And then we get into the systematic issues... Who gets to control the "moral" system? How will we make sure they can't be corrupted like everyone else in power?
So we have a low income family in a low-end autonomous Volvo. Brakes fail and they're set on an unavoidable collision with the limo of the President of the USA... Unless one of them swerve off the road into almost certain death. One family vs. a head of state? ... How about one low-income family in a Volvo vs a Fortune 500 CEO in his Maybach, whose death would have far reaching economic consequences? ... Suddenly we're into the dubious moral question of the relative worth of human lives.
Stop bashing Volvo like a low end brand; :furious :) i don't know how the cars are rated in Europe, but Volvo trucks are excellent $$$ making machines, beside Pete and KW one of the most "american" trucks left on the market ; Freighliner,International moved south. The engines designed in Sweden, but made in Hagerstown Viginia, trucks assembled in Greensboro,NC .This is my 2nd Volvo truck, bought it new, pampered with synthetics lube only , i passed 1,700,000 miles , still original Volvo 485HP, no in frame yet,doesn't burn oil, original Eaton Fuller 13 speed transmission and original differentials. I'm in shop now, i'm replacing all the 3 axles and suspension just for safety .
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 07, 2016, 10:54:23 AM
That's Volvo Trucks which is still part of Swedish Volvo. Volvo Cars otoh has a CEO with the very Swedish sounding name of Li Shufu, and is now owned by Zhejiang Geely. Yeah... Volvo Cars is Chinese now... :uhoh
Nice truck btw. :aok
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: GScholz on September 07, 2016, 10:57:43 AM
Funny to see the dual MPH/KPH speed dial with KPH as the dominant one. Over here it is the other way around, on American cars.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: zack1234 on September 07, 2016, 03:23:31 PM
Heh, I talked with my mother-in-law about this test and threw in some simplified questions like if you can't avoid killing someone with your car, would you let an old or a young one die. "Old". Boss or worker? "Boss". The congregation president or the pastor? "Now that's a tough one...". Your son or daughter/grandson or granddaughter? "Impossible to answer".
Bone idle welfare scroungers :old:
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: FLOOB on September 07, 2016, 03:35:42 PM
Heh, I talked with my mother-in-law about this test and threw in some simplified questions like if you can't avoid killing someone with your car, would you let an old or a young one die. "Old". Boss or worker? "Boss". The congregation president or the pastor? "Now that's a tough one...". Your son or daughter/grandson or granddaughter? "Impossible to answer".
Questions like these are why Anton Chigurh carried coins.
Title: Re: Whom would you let die?
Post by: Wiley on September 07, 2016, 03:42:55 PM