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.

 

Self-driving cars are already deciding who to kill

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN

These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.


Sensors and inter vehicle communication, link up to a local traffic network, computers that can calculate billions of factors in micro seconds and respond faster then then your brain neurons firing off,...of course this is just a hypothetical future situation....the attention span of humans vary,get distracted, mental tiredness .....in such a situation,.....which would you prefer?



Sensors can pick up objects, sure, but they cannot understand the nuances that a human being can understand, and interpret them in a fashion that would be what a person would do. People might get tired, and distracted, but machines and computers can, and do, break down, and computers can be hacked. They are not safer than a human driver.




posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.


Its a hypothetical situation, in an ideal world, we all would have perfect knowledge, but in the real world, that is a luxury, ...time to think and analyse each situation and consider the outcome for each possibility,....a real world example would be a child falling on to the tracks of an on coming train,...instant reaction is required

Taking no action is of course also a valid choice,...but if you were to pick that choice, what you are saying is I rather not be responsible for the death of 1, then to save the lives of 5,....yes, its no fault of yours,....but would you ever question yourself later,...would the thought cross your mind that you could have save the lives of 5?.........lets say instead of 5, its 50 lives at stake,....would you have done the same? not be guilty of 1 death,....and let 50 perish?


A child on the tracks is a far more likely scenario, yes. What we would do would be, to some extent, determined by what we could do. Able to maybe move them, even if close, I think, I hope, most of us would try. I am protective when it comes to kids! Risking myself to save one, no contest! Hypotheticals such as the one presented, though, aren't realistic, and are, as far as I am concerned, worse than a waste of time. They push people to make choices they would never have to make, and set up some sort of "moral" ambiguity, and that undermines sensible morals, as far as I am concerned. The ideas behind a lot of the "utilitarian" ethics people re seriously disturbing, too! Some take things to extremes, and would happily kill off anyone they deemed to be to big of a "waste of resources". That sort of dilemma also gives us some of the absolute worst of movies ever made.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman

Automated safety will not be enforced by the states.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, in conjunction with the United States Department of Transportation, has already established guidelines for automated vehicles. A request for input was distributed through the IEEE asking that engineers in the field submit suggestions a few months ago. Apparently the evolution of these guidelines is ongoing, but the Federal government has already established claim to regulatory authority.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

You can just imagine it in the future, Liberal Lefties attacking people driving older cars that burn gas and pollute ''Their planet'' ,pulling them out of their cars and beating them up ,setting fire to their old classic cars ,like a scene from the Omega man ,Thorn, that evil Conservative from the old world who has to be destroyed !!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.


Its a hypothetical situation, in an ideal world, we all would have perfect knowledge, but in the real world, that is a luxury, ...time to think and analyse each situation and consider the outcome for each possibility,....a real world example would be a child falling on to the tracks of an on coming train,...instant reaction is required

Taking no action is of course also a valid choice,...but if you were to pick that choice, what you are saying is I rather not be responsible for the death of 1, then to save the lives of 5,....yes, its no fault of yours,....but would you ever question yourself later,...would the thought cross your mind that you could have save the lives of 5?.........lets say instead of 5, its 50 lives at stake,....would you have done the same? not be guilty of 1 death,....and let 50 perish?


A child on the tracks is a far more likely scenario, yes. What we would do would be, to some extent, determined by what we could do. Able to maybe move them, even if close, I think, I hope, most of us would try. I am protective when it comes to kids! Risking myself to save one, no contest! Hypotheticals such as the one presented, though, aren't realistic, and are, as far as I am concerned, worse than a waste of time. They push people to make choices they would never have to make, and set up some sort of "moral" ambiguity, and that undermines sensible morals, as far as I am concerned. The ideas behind a lot of the "utilitarian" ethics people re seriously disturbing, too! Some take things to extremes, and would happily kill off anyone they deemed to be to big of a "waste of resources". That sort of dilemma also gives us some of the absolute worst of movies ever made.


Fair enough, thanks for answering



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plutron

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN

These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.


Sensors and inter vehicle communication, link up to a local traffic network, computers that can calculate billions of factors in micro seconds and respond faster then then your brain neurons firing off,...of course this is just a hypothetical future situation....the attention span of humans vary,get distracted, mental tiredness .....in such a situation,.....which would you prefer?


Not that far in the future. I read almost every week in industry magazines about some new intra-vehical standard that is being developed or a modification of the Car-Area-Network protocol, using some version of 802.xx wireless layer. The electronics industry and the automobile manufacturing conglomerates see vehical electronics as a huge new juicy market place. Auto-driving cars are just the tip of the future electronics applications that are being planned, right now. Daily.

Is it good? Seems all the corporations and the feds in EVERY country want to know what their public does, where they go, how fast they get there (insurance statistical profiling), what they buy, how much they paid for something, what they look at, how long they look at something, what foods are eaten, how many times they flush a toilet, how many phone calls, to who, when, where....it goes on and on. Its the Mark of the Beast, soul-less thinking for us, spying on us, regulating when and how we receive our money, how much the guv takes, how much to charge for fuels...computers never forget (unless it happens to be the IRS computers or Hilary Clinton's computers). Government + InterNet (aka 'computers') = Mark of the Beast.

Is it good?

Who is protecting our digital civil-liberties? It aint the guv.

plutron


I too would not desire having a big brother situation, makes it too easy to subdue the population at will, but if forced upon us, I can see certain benefits,...fighting terrorism would be one, extremely high conviction rate for crime would deter criminals would be another,....but yea ultimately

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security
-Benjamin Franklin



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Regulations are not the same as torts. The state constitutions require the state courts to hear cases and provide remedy to injuries. And a jury trial is preserved.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: JD163
What do you choose when you are faced with no good choice?



The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.

I don't think the choices were meant to be realistic. I believe they were meant to make you think of possible scenarios were a robotic car would be left to make the choices.

The video discussed that computer controlled cars may need to be programmed to make life or death decisions, the dilemma becomes more complex when the decision have moral complications. Programming a computer to make choices that may result is death, when we don't have an answer for how to make that choice is the problem.




posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.


Its a hypothetical situation, in an ideal world, we all would have perfect knowledge, but in the real world, that is a luxury, ...time to think and analyse each situation and consider the outcome for each possibility,....a real world example would be a child falling on to the tracks of an on coming train,...instant reaction is required

Taking no action is of course also a valid choice,...but if you were to pick that choice, what you are saying is I rather not be responsible for the death of 1, then to save the lives of 5,....yes, its no fault of yours,....but would you ever question yourself later,...would the thought cross your mind that you could have save the lives of 5?.........lets say instead of 5, its 50 lives at stake,....would you have done the same? not be guilty of 1 death,....and let 50 perish?


A child on the tracks is a far more likely scenario, yes. What we would do would be, to some extent, determined by what we could do. Able to maybe move them, even if close, I think, I hope, most of us would try. I am protective when it comes to kids! Risking myself to save one, no contest! Hypotheticals such as the one presented, though, aren't realistic, and are, as far as I am concerned, worse than a waste of time. They push people to make choices they would never have to make, and set up some sort of "moral" ambiguity, and that undermines sensible morals, as far as I am concerned. The ideas behind a lot of the "utilitarian" ethics people re seriously disturbing, too! Some take things to extremes, and would happily kill off anyone they deemed to be to big of a "waste of resources". That sort of dilemma also gives us some of the absolute worst of movies ever made.

Your example shows how even more complex the programming of robot would have to be. Does one child's life mean more than 50 adult lives?

As you addressed, the devil is in the details, when there are no right or wrong answers; just choices.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
DP. This one was creepy. No lag. No blink. No one posting at the same time. No statement that it was being formatted for posting. Just boom and there it was. Two of them.

edit on 13-2-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: craterman

True enough, but the legal framework will be Federal. As long as a manufacturer is operating under Federal guidelines, those Federal guidelines will protect them from prosecution at the state level. Plaintiffs must show some form of negligence that occurred outside the Federal guidelines.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JD163

It's a fascinating discussion, really!!



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: JD163
What do you choose when you are faced with no good choice?



The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.

I don't think the choices were meant to be realistic. I believe they were meant to make you think of possible scenarios were a robotic car would be left to make the choices.

The video discussed that computer controlled cars may need to be programmed to make life or death decisions, the dilemma becomes more complex when the decision have moral complications. Programming a computer to make choices that may result is death, when we don't have an answer for how to make that choice is the problem.



I agree and that's rather the point. The idea seems to be that accepting some loss of life, as a result of these machines, is alright. If we cannot choose, we can't blame a car for not choosing, either. At the least, it shows that we don't even all agree, so how could we agree to the programming for such a car? This poses a serious ethical conundrum. Group A might agree with the way such cars are programmed, while Group B does not, preferring a different set of standards, with Group C stating that there is no good solution, and a machine should never decide for people. All three groups would have to share the roads with these cars. Or, we'd end up with ONLY self-driving cars, removing the freedom to drive ourselves. I don't see a good solution, that would allow such vehicles to be used.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
DP. This one was creepy. No lag. No blink. No one posting at the same time. No statement that it was being formatted for posting. Just boom and there it was. Two of them.


Weird!! Happens, though.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuXTeN
Would you trust your life to a handful of strangers? A hunk of metal that drives itself? Is it worth it or do you live your life in the fast lane tempting fate?

All valid questions we must consider here. Would cars like these be used for unbecoming means to further population control? No doubt in my mind that they would.

Trust is a sacred thing, so do you think lack of control over your well being, is it worth the risk of possible injury or death?


uk.businessinsider.com...


Autonomous vehicles are already making profound choices about whose lives matter, according to experts, so we might want to pay attention.



"On one hand, the algorithms that control the car may have an explicit set of rules to make moral tradeoffs," Rahwan wrote. "On the other hand, the decision made by a car in the case of unavoidable harm may emerge from the interaction of various software components, none of which has explicit programming to handle moral tradeoffs."




Tesla already has full self-driving hardware on all cars.

How are AV companies actually handling these ethical issues? In many cases, they’re trying to dodge the question.



Provocative thought. Population control carried out individually.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall

Indeed.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN

These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.


Yes i think that's it right there. This type of convenience is more glamour than reality. Now if KITT was real and the guy behind the wheel drove us everywhere i might go for it lol. Other than that though, it's not going to happen, too many programming flaws and inhuman responses.




posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: LuXTeN

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN

These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.


Yes i think that's it right there. This type of convenience is more glamour than reality. Now if KITT was real and the guy behind the wheel drove us everywhere i might go for it lol. Other than that though, it's not going to happen, too many programming flaws and inhuman responses.



I hope we are right! KITT, now.....one of the sexiest tv characters, ever!! Love that car. The guy, eh.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

haha i know right?! Yep the car for sure lol, have you seen that guy lately ugh.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuXTeN
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

haha i know right?! Yep the car for sure lol, have you seen that guy lately ugh.


No, but didn't think he was all that great then, either! Loved the show, but he was just there.



new topics




 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join