That one -is- a tricky issue.  Machine failure is very often sudden...though, again, if some other part of the machine failed -say..the brakes...it would matter very little whether the driver was human or not.

(November 17, 2015 at 12:31 am)Aroura Wrote: ... I agree that this is not some moral issue.  Like the train track dilema.  But this one fails to give me much of a dilema.  The car will do what it is programmed to do, which will be to try and avoid killing anyone.

As you say, "The car will do what it is programmed to do", but that is where the moral issue resides. There is a programmer or team of programmers, that must consider the outcome of the decision making process that will ultimately control the vehicle. I do not know if there are any real programmers on board, but programming must encompass worst case scenarios. In the case of computer software and games, generally the rule of thumb is that any input which fails to align with the intended programming is just shoved in the bit bucket and the software will resume polling inputs. However, in the case of cars and planes, it would be disastrous to ignore unforeseen inputs, so worst case scenarios must be considered, albeit they can usually be grouped into similar algorithms, but that is where the problem comes in. Simple algorithm, something in way, dodge it. OH NO! Cliff, too late. It does not matter how fast the computer is because it must abide by physics and causality, i.e. reason for stopping and stopping distance. Even though it can calculate, for sake of argument, the exact stopping distance, it is still obligated by the laws of physics. This does not consider tire wear, that patch of oil (hit one on a bike once, no fun) or any other unknowns. Because the car cannot think and can only do what is programmed, ultimately the programmer has to consider the decision to program the safety of the occupants or the safety of the greater numbers or whatever. This is where the morality lies and ultimately the obligatory lawsuits. It is obvious from some of the posts, that some posters did not really read the article linked at the beginning. So yes, from the programmer's stand point, this is exactly the trolley problem.

(November 17, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That one -is- a tricky issue.  Machine failure is very often sudden...though, again, if some other part of the machine failed -say..the brakes...it would matter very little whether the driver was human or not.

In the case of autopilots, there would be two computers on different power supplies monitoring each other. It does not help with actual mechanical failure, however, it can help avoid them.  Time to change the brakes pads or service the brake fluid.  Did not do it and get the update from the mechanic?  Car no go.  A check vehicle light with a grace period then shut down.

I'm onboard with Hal, and I can't wait for him to be onboard with me.  There are very few situations that I can think of, relating to the operation of heavy equipment, that a computer isn't better suited for than a human being, or at least on par with a human being. The programmers job is difficult, no doubt. Those same decisions play out in our own minds when we find ourselves in an auto accident (or near one). We tend to favor ourselves, but every so often....eh?

I don't see us giving people who hit other vehicles while trying to avoid dying due to some failure or unforseen event that much shit. People swerve to avoid getting hit by semis and end up hitting other cars with some regularity. I'd hope we would extend the same courtesy to the programmers of automatic vehicles.

(November 17, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm onboard with Hal, and I can't wait for him to be onboard with me.  There are very few situations that I can think of, relating to the operation of heavy equipment, that a computer isn't better suited for than a human being, or at least on par with a human being.  The programmers job is difficult, no doubt.  Those same decisions play out in our own minds when we find ourselves in an auto acident (or near one).  We tend to favor ourselves, but every so often....eh?

Not really. This is one of those situations where the decision is way above my pay grade and it's going to be decided at a much higher pay grade before I write a signal line of code to handle the corner case. You want me as a programmer to make such decisions? Start adding digits to my paycheck.

True enough, lol, true enough. More of a "tell me what you want the car to do in situation x, boss", eh.

(November 16, 2015 at 9:00 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I don't think they'll ever catch on personally ...

And they thought Apple was wasting time and effort with the iPad. Several companies tried and it never caught on. We have people today that would buy the driverless car just because it was a fad. Made cheap enough, there will be a line outside the door. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll while somebody else (the car) does the driving. Priced a taxi lately? Do you have a bus stop or train stop in front of your house? Does your bus run 24 hours a day? Will your bus be there when you are ready or do you have to wait on it's schedule? That is why most Americans have cars. Now a car with a built in chauffeur? They will not be able to keep the American consumer away.

(November 17, 2015 at 8:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't see us giving people who hit other vehicles while trying to avoid dying due to some failure or unforseen event that much shit.  People swerve to avoid getting hit by semis and end up hitting other cars with some regularity.   I'd hope we would extend the same courtesy to the programmers of automatic vehicles.

The problem is people (especially after conversing with a lawyer) are greedy. There was a lawsuit against Ford, way back when, that involved a teenager, a pick/up, nighttime, a straight country road and a sharp curve at the end of that road. The truck rolled, the roof caved in and the teen was mangled and/or killed (faulty memory). The contention was that Ford should have built a better roof.

As often as their vehicles used to roll.....and as aware of it as they were....I can't say I disagree.  Whats the point of putting a seatbelt in a coffin and calling it a day?

Aren't the Google cars able to "see" movement from things like behind bushes?
This may extremely reduce the likelyness of this situation.