It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warren Buffett says Self-Driving Cars will Decide Whether Humans Live or Die

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This caught my attention, and I thought I would share with ATS to gather a consensus on how people feel about the ethical questions around newer technologies such as self-driving cars.

Warren Buffett was invited to speak at a forum hoted by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), in which he described how in the near future, self-driving cars will make decisions under hazardous circumstances as to whether the passengers will live or die. To illustrate this, here is a quick scenario: if one self-driving vehicle has 3 passengers, and another self-driving vehicle has 2 passengers, but one of these 2 passengers is a newborn, and both vehicles are on a collision course, the self-driving cars would make the decision as to what maneuvers would be made - potentially ending the lives of some of these hypothetical passengers.

Who gets to define the standards for the values of human lives under different age groups/circumstances, etc. If one passenger has AIDS (or another potentially fatal, incurable disease), would that be a factor that is programmed into the self-driving vehicle's computer systems?

Obviously this raises a lot of questions. It also put the premise of self-driving cars into perspective for me - because no longer are humans the drivers - just simply passengers, along for the ride *Cue theme music: Highway to Hell by AC/DC [this is a joke, hopefully well-received and not offensive to anyone].

Anyway, what do my friends at ATS have to say about putting our lives in the hands of computers like Buffett is suggesting?

Video of Buffett at the NADA forum:




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Honestly, robotic cars should have as few decisions to make as possible. Automated transport should be more like a modular railroad; slot your car into the track and go. At that point, accidents are no more horrifying than they are currently when you step onto a plane or a bus or a train. Sure, on a train or plane there are people operating the vehicle, but they, too, have very few decision to make in transit. Pilots just have to keep the plane in the air and follow flight tower directions. Train engineers just have to speed up or slow down appropriately. Most of the decisions are made for them.

Simply trying to automate our current highway system would be insanity.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
And they said de-population was merely an opinion usually put forward by Conspiracy Theorists.

Here in the U.K we call them Driverless Cars, or is it just me? Self driving cars suggests a rental motor.

Anyway, scary stuff and I can't believe that man is still alive. I bet if he was in one, and there was a bus load of newborns.........



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Very interesting, OP. And it raises a lot of relevant questions, I think.
But what occurs to me, mostly, is: If we have self driving cars, then why, exactly are we here?
If the car can drive itself, and we're just here to be visible sitting inside it, while it does this, doesn't this raise any red flags for anyone else?

Yes, there are symbols, and there are signs, and they are different in structure and meaning to our "reality." Given that, some things probably don't mean anything at all….. but what if an observer thinks they do, anyway….
This is similar to your OP, without being so obvious, though. This is far more difficult, because it involves unspoken (tacit or supposedly "understood" definitions, we all agree upon…however
understanding, and anytime something is unspoken it may or may not be agreed upon or understood at all. And right there, we have the caveat, or agreement upon which, nothing is based because nothing can be spoken outright and therefore, agreed upon.

This, in my understanding, currently, is how "life" and death (probably more relevant to this discussion) works.

Self driving cars. What then, would be the point in having a car?
And so, I ask you to ask yourself this?
For it's a perfect allegory to what we are now living through: a life, with no choice, totally controlled. Perhaps?
tetra



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Well, I guess I will not be riding in one after that bit of information.
Thanks, but no thanks. Question becomes what happens to the folks still driving their own cars?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse
Well, I guess I will not be riding in one after that bit of information.
Thanks, but no thanks. Question becomes what happens to the folks still driving their own cars?

Guess…you first.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Watch out for the programmers going all radical on our butts.

Seriously, we only have pilots to make us feel a bit more secure. Planes have been flying and landing by themselves for a long time. Until the recent Germanwings incident, I never liked the thought of getting on a plane without a pilot being at the controls.

There's not much point in existing unless we can decide risks for ourselves, it's what keeps us alive. We are becoming conditioned to being nothing more than slaves, feeding upon and back into the money machine.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
i think it would go something like this maybe:

Two cars, the number of people inside, irrelevant.

Car A has computer driving, Car B has a human driving - kid runs in front of car A. Kid dies as it would if a human was driving.

Car A has a computer driving, Car B also has a computer driving - kid runs in front of car A, Car A asks Car B (because computer controlled cars would be networked obviously!) to aid in evasive maneuvers IF a fatal casualty can be avoided, IF NOT, Kid dies as if a human was driving - IF YES Cars proceed with synchronized evasive maneuvers.

Either way it doesnt look all that great for the kid, exactly as it does now. Moral of the story for the kid, dont run in front of cars.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: tetra50

Watch out for the programmers going all radical on our butts.

Seriously, we only have pilots to make us feel a bit more secure. Planes have been flying and landing by themselves for a long time. Until the recent Germanwings incident, I never liked the thought of getting on a plane without a pilot being at the controls.

There's not much point in existing unless we can decide risks for ourselves, it's what keeps us alive. We are becoming conditioned to being nothing more than slaves, feeding upon and back into the money machine.


EXACTLY!! I'm having a very bad day, and was hoping I said enough to be understood. You just reaffirmed my thoughts, and thanks for that. Yes, "tis exactly what I was trying to say. What strikes me, though, is neither thing you suggest are "safe," now…..

Pilots flying, machines flying, it's all become the same thing, IMHO. We are all susceptible, human and machine to the same control system, and it's having its will with us willy nilly. And life is suffering, as a result, in my humble estimation, again.

Somehow, we gave the keys away already, is my thought, and we are now seeing the fallout. Where it stops, is the real question.
tetra



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: tetra50


Self driving cars. What then, would be the point in having a car?
And so, I ask you to ask yourself this?
For it's a perfect allegory to what we are now living through: a life, with no choice, totally controlled. Perhaps?
tetra


Wouldn't it be the same point as now? You don't have to follow bus schedules or train schedules or hunt for a cab. You can leave when you want and go exactly where you want. The only difference is, you can sit back and read a book or have a chat with someone on the phone. All the control and freedom without all the stress of driving. Sounds great to me.

Regarding what Buffett said, I would think/hope that the driver-less cars would try to save both cars, regardless of who is in them. But, I don't know enough about how they would actually work when interacting with each other.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: tetra50


Self driving cars. What then, would be the point in having a car?
And so, I ask you to ask yourself this?
For it's a perfect allegory to what we are now living through: a life, with no choice, totally controlled. Perhaps?
tetra


Wouldn't it be the same point as now? You don't have to follow bus schedules or train schedules or hunt for a cab. You can leave when you want and go exactly where you want. The only difference is, you can sit back and read a book or have a chat with someone on the phone. All the control and freedom without all the stress of driving. Sounds great to me.

Regarding what Buffett said, I would think/hope that the driver-less cars would try to save both cars, regardless of who is in them. But, I don't know enough about how they would actually work when interacting with each other.


I repeat my original point, kayla: then, what is the point of having a car, and you occupying it?

Sorry. I tend to see much of what we are currently living through as a "set-up."
We'll see whether I'm wrong about that. Hope I am, btw.
tetra



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

From the way I understand it, based on a number of factors (i.e. number of passengers, those passengers' health conditions, parental status, and so on), the driverless cars would use algorithms to determine which car has a greater "value", and since the driverless cars will need to operate on the same systems and using the same algorithms, (and will be inter-connected to one-another), both cars would determine the same fate of all those involved.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
In a world where all cars were automated, they wouldn't have to make ethical decisions because the cars wouldn't put us in that danger in the 1st place and would do everything with safety in mind. They would drive a safe enough distance from cars so if they did have to stop in emergency then they would have the distance to stop in time, add in the reaction time being much quicker than any human and you don't have a problem.
The car with all the information from it's sensors would know how much traction each tyre has and be able to oscillate each individual brake, it would know everything whereas we as humans can only judge by the input we receive through the steering wheel. Accidents due to surface changes like black ice, oil would be reduced and the fact that you can go down the pub and have your car pick you and take you home for me it's a win-win situation.
Now in this world the only ethical decisions the car would have to make is if a human crossing the street unexpectedly etc.. but again the automated car would be able to respond much quicker than any human.
You could also use the system that they use on airplanes, i think it's TCAS but I may be getting my acronyms mixed up where 2 on collision aircraft, the system takes over from the pilots and changes the direction and altitude of both planes to avoid collision. The same system could be used when a car has to make an emergency change to avoid hitting someone, the other cars around respond in kind to allow the car in danger to make whatever maneuver is required.

Now as a driver it does concern me because I love to drive but I can see the benefits of having a fully automated system and I think you would find that the local motorsports industries would see a huge boost as people go to the tracks to drive their cars.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The "driverless cars" here in California...

They can drive 80 mph inches from each other with no incidents.

They never call in sick.

They never get drunk and kill innocents.

Computers making descsions about traffic flow and saving energy.

They are coming. It sounds pretty good to me.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The thought of self driving cars scares the piss out of me. Once all the bugs are worked out and we become reliant on the vehicles, is when the real fun begins.

No more speeding tickets, no more DUI's, operating without a license, illegal lane usage, etc...

Gonna have to raise taxes to offset no revenue from the tickets.

All the counselors from DUI's will need a new line of work.

Repair shops will be a thing of the past

I'm merely scratching the surface of what we are headed into when self driving cars are a reality. Use your imagination, could have opposite effects of what was intended...



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
The thought of self driving cars scares the piss out of me. Once all the bugs are worked out and we become reliant on the vehicles, is when the real fun begins.

No more speeding tickets, no more DUI's, operating without a license, illegal lane usage, etc...

Gonna have to raise taxes to offset no revenue from the tickets.

All the counselors from DUI's will need a new line of work.

Repair shops will be a thing of the past

I'm merely scratching the surface of what we are headed into when self driving cars are a reality. Use your imagination, could have opposite effects of what was intended...

Thanks so much for making me think about this a different way.
But still….
I'm in the car but not driving it. So, why again am I there?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Did I miss the explanation for why these computer-controlled cars would be on a collision course in the first place? If computers control the system, then they (1) wouldn't be sending cars on a collision course, or (2) if they were, it would be a computer system error, in which case they wouldn't know it was happening anyway.

This 'hypothetical situation" seems more like a thought experiment than anything that we would really need to worry about.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Because you still have to get to work. That is if you don't have a job in the automobile repair industry, or the many other jobs that will go the way of the DODO bird once these things become common place and reliable.

This will crush millions of jobs and billions from revenue from the imperfections from mankind. No more chance for people to screw up. No people screwing up equals no one to fix our screw ups. Everybody can flip burgers for 25 bucks an hour I suppose?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Would you walk everywhere if you didn't drive? I use my car to get to work, got to the shops, road trips as well as the fun of driving. I would still do all these things with an automated car, the fun of driving would happen on the track instead of public roads.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: FamCore

Did I miss the explanation for why these computer-controlled cars would be on a collision course in the first place? If computers control the system, then they (1) wouldn't be sending cars on a collision course, or (2) if they were, it would be a computer system error, in which case they wouldn't know it was happening anyway.

This 'hypothetical situation" seems more like a thought experiment than anything that we would really need to worry about.


Of course, you have a valid point of view. However, I must tell you that much literature and many indicate we may already be in a "machine" controlled existence, in which mankind created machine to outdo "god" who created him, and mankind has never forgiven god for, even though god is a man introduced concept to explain his existence.

Just go with me for a moment, herein: So, then, man created machine, such was his anger at "god."
There plenty of literature to explain what may happen next: man vs. machine.
But ultimately, one must consider that machine, without emotion and only logic, would be antithetical, completely, to our way of life, survival, and importance. For emotion, truly, is what "man" lives for and by, cannot be divorced from. Without emotion, there, in fact, is no validity for the experience of living…..I assert.

Everything hereabouts is in a collision course with living: as currently, living seems to be mainly about ….well, dying?
and then starting again. Where is this getting us, exactly?

In general, however, without the necessity of agreeing above we are already machine controlled or at the least, in some kind of classist, if not technological hierarchy, antithetical to what we were originally created to live through, surely we can agree upon one thing: every time mankind surrenders the element of choice, what happens?
tetra




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join