Kalash of Cultures - Pakistan: http://youtu.be/qEXnEfdvv6s The argument: 1. Watch the video; this Dardic mountain tribe plays polo. They fiercely fought for their independence through the ages, till the British arrived; at which point they adopted some British customs like playing polo on weekends (although they claim they invented the game first). 2. The Kalasha have lived in geographic isolation for so long that their DNA has diverged. But, there are markers to suggest that they come from around the Mediterranean(that is, that they are Dardic). There are 2 theories as to how they got there: a. They were travellers along the silk route who decided to settle in a scenic location and sell spices, apricots and cherries (the latter two do not grow in the subcontinent, only in the Mediterranean; and with no contact with the outside world for centuries, there's no other way they could've gotten these fruits) b. They are descendants of Alexander the Great 's armies; who ref...
I would say that the correct answer would be depends, who has the highest possibility of not surviving the event on each possibility should be the one ruling this decisions.
ReplyDeleteFor example, on sometimes, to stop on time not to touch the peasant could severely injury the driver, while the peasant would only get some bruises if the stop were progressive enough not to hurt the driver.
On that case, I would say go to hurt the pedestrian becuase its the least of all evil.
On the case on the article, it would depends on how many people would be on the car. Is there more people on the car that the ones it need to run over to avoid the wall? If yes, well yeah, sorry for the pedestrian.
If not, well, sorry for the drivers.
Go for what it saves more lives instead of what it's better for you.
Ana Prados The point of the article is that most people disagree with that altruistic approach.
ReplyDeleteThink about this: If you sit down in am autonomous vehicle there is an implicit trust relationship. You have a reasonable expectation that the AI that is driving will do everything in its power to protect your life. You have the sane expectation of a human cabbie out Uber driver.
So, for you, should sacrificing you be a user setting?
Sarah Rosen No, the system should do the best for all involved, that is the reason I favor AI as ruling instead of human bigotry and egoism.
ReplyDelete(Note that my humans expectations are today specially low, as I live on UK)
Ana Prados I feel your pain. It appears that slightly over half of your voting countrymen have caught a case of American-style arrogance.
ReplyDeleteThat said, what should be and what will be are likely to be two very different things because justice and the law have nothing to do with each other. The default behavior of AIs will be determined not by the programmers but by the corporate CEOs, politicians and insurance company lawyers. Whatever exposes the corporate interests to the least amount of liability will be the default.
I think I saw a poll somewhere where the question was "if your driverless car is in an accident and it can either save you or the family on the sidewalk, who should it save?" and the result was to save the family. The followup question was "would you want to use that car?" and the result was an overwhelming no. So humans are, as a whole, a bit split on this topic making it very difficult for whoever has to make the decision.
ReplyDeleteWhich autonomous car would be easier to insure? One that minimizes total casualties, or one which protects the driver at all costs? How about the driver versus passengers?
ReplyDelete