|
Hi , I would present you with a small dilemma that occupied me lately and would like to hear your thoughts as it will probably be varied and as this is an international site we will probably have some culture differences which is interesting as well , ok here goes :
The "old" Trolley problem quoted from Wikipedia : There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?
Research showed that 90% will kill the 1 person , some studies went further and found that if you show the same dilemma but instead of the level the person needs to PUSH the 1 person to save the 5 most people will NOT do it.
So now Autonomous cars - same problem (in many manifestations) , for example - * Car sees a pedestrian it will shortly hit , the car can swerve the pedestrian and hit a wall or run him over - what will the car do ?
There is a truck that spills a big log of wood and it rolls towards your car , you need to either swerve and take out a motorcycle or get hit by the wooden log - what will the car do ?
Of course you can have 5 pedestrian vs 1 in the car and all sorts of other stuff.
They did a survey in which they ask people what they think and most of them said "car should save as many as it can" , they then proceeded to ask if they will BUY a car that can pick to kill them instead of killing others and most said "Hell NO".
What do you guys think ? how should society handle this problem as its almost upon us!!!!!! Sorry for the english , tried my best .
|
From an advertisement standpoint, the passenger/s in the car should always be prioritized over potential pedestian lives. Sure, the car might have killed five people in an accident, but YOU and YOUR FAMILY, purchasers of the product, are safe.
Saving as many as possible is just a utilitarian argument where every life has the same value, something which is nonsense - i'd value my (now dead) cat over your kids, for instance. The only choice for the developer of the AI code, then, would be the benefit of the company buying her code for their automated car.
Morals be damned, this is commerce.
Unless regulation demands otherwise, this will be the descision making in car AI.
|
In the end, the car manufacturers will not decide based on ethical consideration. They will do what lawyers say is the legally correct option.
|
Mafe has it right.
Manufacturers won't give a shit about it, it's business. The question would be, what would insurers say. That might not be that much of a problem in the US where you can literally put a race car/nascar underneath a registered body and nobody bats an eye, but for example in germany, i'm not sure that autonomous cars ever will be insurable.
For that matter, "autonomous cars" are, for me, a pipe dream. They're not coming. They always will have the owner as the last instance making a decision. In case of the "autonomous" car, if put in front of the trolley problem, it will put the responsibility on the driver. The same way an autopilot in a plane puts the responsibility for a malfunction on a pilot rather than dealing with it itself.
Everything else is simply not insurable - imagine your car decides, doesn't matter who it goes for, kills 1 or 5. Who's responsible? The owner of the car that didn't make the decision? The programmers of the car? Who are you going after for repairs?
This utopian fantasy of getting into a car, telling it where to go and being driven while reading a newspaper is never going to happen, simply because nobody would be responsible for accident. Insurers obviously (and rightfully so) can't have that.
|
It's a big problem, but car automation will come. It must come. I recently made a trip to the Alps and on German Autobahn(s?) there were on average between 1.2 and 1.5 people per car. That's a massive amount of energy wasted. That's a massive amount of space wasted. When you travel half an hour to work every day with your car, you move like 1-2 tons of car to carry your little 80kg. It's just not feasible.
I know the dilemma and I have no idea how to fix it. But in the end it will be reconciled by the fact that there will be like 1% of the accidents that happen now.
To clarify: I'm not talking about cars you don't need to drive, that's mere convenience. I talk about a system where cars are more like public transport guided by a central, automated system. I know especially in Germany it will take ages to get people to realize it's better for everyone, but in my estimation it's just the way to go.
|
As someone who actualy works with autonomous and semi-autonomous cars i must disappoint You guys that those divagations are mostly pointless. 1.Legislation (at least in Europe) do not allow for driverless cars. Driver will be held resposible even if he leaves driving entierly to program. 2.Autonomous cars will drive in a way that allow them to react to all programmed situations 3.In an unexpected situation which they are not programmed for they will fall back to low level routine which will not make high level considerations. 4.Accidents will be caused by bugs, unexpected situations, hardware malfunctions. 5.Personally i would not write "kill someone" routine, not only becuase of ethics, but of the fear i get it wrong and it will fire when it shouldnt
Someone, somwhere might do something like that but it will be for the lulz of publicty and not becuase of the actual need.
|
The trolley problem is "would you kill one to save many", whereas the survey the OP mentions is more or less "would you kill yourself to save many". There is a world of difference between those two.
|
To people who think its not coming , Waymo (Google) is already running a driverless car program in Arizona (phoenix suburb) and to my understanding no one is behind the wheel , its interesting to hear that Europe do not allow it , but i believe that if the US will go that route all the western world will follow , the amount of fatalities will be reduced drastically , sure Car insurance companies will go bankrupt but thats a small price to pay (hate those). I guess in the end the US will decide a rule set to follow for any car on their land and it won't be in the hand of the car maker or the passenger. To Silvanel - I think the point is probably a small one as you stated most of the accidents will not have the computer make that decision as it will be rare , but its just something to think about when you get in such a car and know that the car will choose to not save you if it decides so.
I guess i am on the self preservation camp like plated.rawr , but doing so might cause other issues , in the end to solve a complex accident scenario , having the cars communicate between themselves, mainly close cars (which will happen) and decide together who goes where will be complicated if someone has to be sacrificed to maximise the equation. Cheers , and cant wait to start the revolution in 5 years
|
Why do you think car insurance companies will go bankrupt? Why do you hate car insurance companies?
|
First of all the cars will never drive so fast that they cant break in their current situation (keep in mind they have basically instant reflexes). So presumably something insane will have to happen or there has to be a bug. But lets say a human being suddenly pops up infront of the car. Its going to start breaking as hard as it can while checking for space to avoid the person, just like a human would. If it cant avoid the person (road to narrow for example) it will hit that person, just like a human would.
When the accident is investigated the conclusion would be that it was unavoidable and the car did the best it could. So I dont see how an insurance company would not insure the car. The difference might be that either the driver has an insurance personally on the car (a very cheap one) and the manufacturer has one (for possible bugs or errors) or only the manufacturer has insurance and personal insurance is a thing of the past.
Also consider that if all cars on the roads are automated you could pull of some pretty amazing evasive manouvers that would have resulted in huge pileups today.
|
[QUOTE]On June 21 2018 22:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why do you think car insurance companies will go bankrupt? Why do you hate car insurance companies? [/QUOTE
Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
|
On June 21 2018 23:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: First of all the cars will never drive so fast that they cant break in their current situation (keep in mind they have basically instant reflexes). So presumably something insane will have to happen or there has to be a bug. But lets say a human being suddenly pops up infront of the car. Its going to start breaking as hard as it can while checking for space to avoid the person, just like a human would. If it cant avoid the person (road to narrow for example) it will hit that person, just like a human would.
When the accident is investigated the conclusion would be that it was unavoidable and the car did the best it could. So I dont see how an insurance company would not insure the car. The difference might be that either the driver has an insurance personally on the car (a very cheap one) and the manufacturer has one (for possible bugs or errors) or only the manufacturer has insurance and personal insurance is a thing of the past.
Also consider that if all cars on the roads are automated you could pull of some pretty amazing evasive manouvers that would have resulted in huge pileups today.
Agreed on the second part , insurance companies will insure the automated cars , if they dont a new "automated insurance inc" company will rise and insure them. Regarding the first point - the point is that if it CAN avoid the lady with the stroller BUT in order to achieve that it needs to run the car into a wall , what the car should do?
|
It should run over the lady with the stroller. You should never program the car to make the choice to run into a wall. You should program it to predict danger and drive more defensivly when there is a possiblity for an accident. Killing the old lady with the stroller means that the programing has failed in some way either due to a bug (which can be fixed) or unforseen circumstances (which the AI logic can be improved to forsee in the feature in order to prevent the accident).
Spending enormous ammount of resources to program some kind of moral choice scenario is counter productive when you instead can improve prevention and avoidance routines.
If you asked a driving teacher this question he would say that you should have driven slower so you had time to brake. Its exactly the same thing for the car.
|
there is a VOL(value of life) number used to calculate insurance stuff; there's no doubt they will come up with a VOL number for the driver-less problem and then it'll be business as usual: aristocrats(which will benefit the most from a driver-less world) vs the plebs/populous/populists(who will be killed the most by well ... no one) duking it out.
|
On June 21 2018 23:09 bluzi wrote: Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
Do you actually drive? Because you don't seem to understand how car insurance works, nor that the main point of obligatory car insurance is to protect other people. If your country (whichever that is) has problems with fraudulent car insurance, that is a problem with your country's legislation.
Seriously though, car insurance companies will go bankrupt because there will be less car accidents is one of the funniest thing I have read for a while.
|
On June 22 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 23:09 bluzi wrote: Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
Do you actually drive? Because you don't seem to understand how car insurance works, nor that the main point of obligatory car insurance is to protect other people. If your country (whichever that is) has problems with fraudulent car insurance, that is a problem with your country's legislation. Seriously though, car insurance companies will go bankrupt because there will be less car accidents is one of the funniest thing I have read for a while.
for the record, what he said sounded pretty reasonable, so calling it "one of the funniest things you have read for a while" is pretty rude. not that I think you were actually trying to be rude or had any mean intention.
anyways could you explain your stance a bit? it certainly seems to me that if car accidents became infrequent enough, car insurance would no longer be mandated.
|
On June 23 2018 02:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 21 2018 23:09 bluzi wrote: Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
Do you actually drive? Because you don't seem to understand how car insurance works, nor that the main point of obligatory car insurance is to protect other people. If your country (whichever that is) has problems with fraudulent car insurance, that is a problem with your country's legislation. Seriously though, car insurance companies will go bankrupt because there will be less car accidents is one of the funniest thing I have read for a while. for the record, what he said sounded pretty reasonable, so calling it "one of the funniest things you have read for a while" is pretty rude. not that I think you were actually trying to be rude or had any mean intention. anyways could you explain your stance a bit? it certainly seems to me that if car accidents became infrequent enough, car insurance would no longer be mandated. Car insurance is mandated because of the high costs associated with bad crashes and that someone needs to cover those bills. Our economy cannot function if every person is as risk losing 3-5 years pay every time they drive their car. Every car bad accident would mean that the average middle class family could be thrown into bankruptcy. It is better for the country to mandate insurance and collectively absorb the cost of having a person vehicle based travel system.
|
On June 22 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2018 23:09 bluzi wrote: Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
Do you actually drive? Because you don't seem to understand how car insurance works, nor that the main point of obligatory car insurance is to protect other people. If your country (whichever that is) has problems with fraudulent car insurance, that is a problem with your country's legislation. Seriously though, car insurance companies will go bankrupt because there will be less car accidents is one of the funniest thing I have read for a while.
I will not comment in the same way you did , but YOU dont seem to understand how insurance business works...... lets take it to the extreme , if there will be 0 car accidents , do you think those insurance companies will have the same income and prosperity ? now i assume you answered "But there will always be accidents" - Good , now you can slide that bar to the left ,where the other side of the scale is where we are today , so in a scale of today and a future with far less accidents (not 0 of course) we will pay LESS for car insurance which of course will kill a lot of the car insurance companies. The point is not that we wont need insurance , but it will be CHEAP as the risk of paying out is very low making the premium you pay very low.
|
On June 23 2018 02:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2018 02:24 travis wrote:On June 22 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 21 2018 23:09 bluzi wrote: Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
Do you actually drive? Because you don't seem to understand how car insurance works, nor that the main point of obligatory car insurance is to protect other people. If your country (whichever that is) has problems with fraudulent car insurance, that is a problem with your country's legislation. Seriously though, car insurance companies will go bankrupt because there will be less car accidents is one of the funniest thing I have read for a while. for the record, what he said sounded pretty reasonable, so calling it "one of the funniest things you have read for a while" is pretty rude. not that I think you were actually trying to be rude or had any mean intention. anyways could you explain your stance a bit? it certainly seems to me that if car accidents became infrequent enough, car insurance would no longer be mandated. Car insurance is mandated because of the high costs associated with bad crashes and that someone needs to cover those bills. Our economy cannot function if every person is as risk losing 3-5 years pay every time they drive their car. Every car bad accident would mean that the average middle class family could be thrown into bankruptcy. It is better for the country to mandate insurance and collectively absorb the cost of having a person vehicle based travel system.
The point is not if its mandated or not , its about your premium and how much you pay , it will be a very cheap insurance when car accidents are rare , of course you will have it to cover the costs you mention , but it will be cheap due to its rarity , the cost of your insurance is not only calculated by the damages the insurance company will pay in case you sue them , its heavily related to the frequency it needs to do it , thats why disability insurance for example for young people is very cheap not because the payout is low (it can reach hundred of thousands of USD) but because the odds it actually happening are low.
|
On June 23 2018 02:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2018 21:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 21 2018 23:09 bluzi wrote: Car insurance companies will have FAR less income then they have today causing some of them to go bankrupt , reason is the fact we will have FAR less car accidents, dont forget that today insurance is very expensive to some sectors due to risk of the driver - young/old pay more for example.
I hate car insurance companies the same way i "hate" other insurance companies , mainly because in my country they are very unfair to their customers , meaning that they will try their hardest NOT to pay you even if you were a long lasting client and a good one and even if your case is just and reasonable , we have a new law in the works that demand the CEO of the company to put the clients ABOVE the shareholders in the case of the insurance companies , hoping it will help the companies to be more fair.
Do you actually drive? Because you don't seem to understand how car insurance works, nor that the main point of obligatory car insurance is to protect other people. If your country (whichever that is) has problems with fraudulent car insurance, that is a problem with your country's legislation. Seriously though, car insurance companies will go bankrupt because there will be less car accidents is one of the funniest thing I have read for a while. for the record, what he said sounded pretty reasonable, so calling it "one of the funniest things you have read for a while" is pretty rude. not that I think you were actually trying to be rude or had any mean intention. anyways could you explain your stance a bit? it certainly seems to me that if car accidents became infrequent enough, car insurance would no longer be mandated. A risk being infrequent, simply means lower premiums. payouts will also be lower. Actuaries still have their jobs and the laws of probability does not change so insurance companies go bankrupt. I don't see any connection why automated cars and lower accident risk will remove mandatory car insurance. It'll be up to you to tell me why it would. In any case car insurance companies are insurance companies. Even if cars are not insurable in the future for whatever reason, those companies will still exist as insurance companies.
|
|
|
|