Hi all,

I'm still quite interested if there is anyone prepared to offer answers to the questions I put in my original post? I will rephrase them slightly to permit them to stand on their own.

1. Should a car be programmed to swerve to avoid 3 pedestrians on the road even if it meant hitting a single pedestrian on the footpath?

2. An autonomous car is faced with the scenario of being unable to brake in time to avoid one of two obstacles, a pedestrian or a parked truck. The first would potentially kill the pedestrian while the second would likely seriously injure the vehicle's occupant. Which action is ethically more robust?

3. Would you purchase a car that was programmed with the sort of software that doesn't place your and your family's well-being at the top of the list?

Any takers?

Steele redux, if you had to pose these sort of scenarios when talking about the 'programming' of autonomous cars, then my reaction would be to suggest we don't make them at all!

I would like to see any possible autonomous cars that could be easily turned on into fully human-driven cars in a split second, so that these sort of scenarios could be decided by the human if need be. I realize that may be difficult but unless they could be made this way then i can't see them being 'ethical' in any real way.

As for the exciting idea that we could hop into these cars drunk, and be driven safely home, I would dispute the wisdom of this thought.
Imagine a drunken idiot in a car supposedly taking him home and he is stupid enough to try controlling some part of the car, or the directions, or the speed, himself ? I doubt there would be any car made that was drunken-idiot-proof, would you?

I'd like to see one of these 'brain fart' cars on a country road at night dodging kangaroos.

Or in a situation that I experienced between Guyra and Ebor (NSW) when the road was still dirt; I crested a hill and there was a semi coming towards me, on the down slope of the next hill and driving on the crown of the road.
I pulled over and stopped to let him have a free go and to avoid the worst of the dust which was boiling behind him.
Just as he started to climb my side a car cam out of the dust at speed (the semi wasn't wasting any time either). Had I not stopped I'd have met the idiot in the car and his family head on in the dust.

The semi driver waved his thanks and gave an expressive gesture as he passed.

What would an autonomous car have done?

For hacking of car computer systems see Google.

Hi Steele,
Here's whats going to happen:

People wont just be people.
It may depend on how IMPORTANT or WEALTHY that person is, or the car may choose to hit 3 male adults rather than a woman with a stroller.

Lets say the car has to choose between hitting a MP or running into a crowd of people - The car might be programmed to value the MP more than the people.

So it won't even be about ethics, it will be about how valuable a human being you are.

Would I want one of these cars?
On face value No, but we may all be sold on some sales pitch.
Personally I'm thinking more about older cars, the ones where you knew you were driving them and there wasn't any computers or gps in them.

I'm not sure if technology is empowering us or imprisoning us sometimes.

Lets Play Dodge 'Em Cars
What I want to know is what an autonomous car and driver would do if say I attacked said car with the intention of doing it harm.

Will the autonomous car run away?
Or will it stay and fight?

Anyone who actually believes they will be able to program an autonomous car to chose which group of pedestrians to hit, or miss, anytime soon is kidding themselves. Even very expensive auto pilots on ships & large boats are not reliable enough to be left without a crew member on permanent watch over the things.

Actually Is Mise, your example is one where they should be of some use. They will have to have a good radar system, that would have been able to see through that dust, to see that car you couldn't. Hell one would even have saved steely with his lightless car.

But how good do you think they will be at noticing a dog, kangaroo or cow on the side of the road, judge if it is a threat, & make a useful response. Then how about that idiot stopped talking on their phone on the side of the road. Will they be able to make a sensible choice of action there, like anticipating the likelihood of that car pulling out without looking?

They would have to err on the conservative response. I can see a half hour drive becoming a 2 hour drive, as the things creep[ around if we are ever stupid enough to let them loose.

While I will happily accept granny cluttering up my main road, driving into town at 70 Km/H, if that is all she feels & probably is safe doing, I'm damned if I'll accept some yuppie in their computer controlled thing slowing down every time some cow sticks it's head through a fence to eat a bit of grass, just so they can prattle on their phone.

Once they can produce a useful robot vacuum cleaner it may be time to think about cars, but probably not this century.

Steele

A restating of the "trolley problem" as the "surgeon problem" may change your mind on pulling the lever.

You are a surgeon who has 5 patients who will die if they dont get an immediate transplant.
Today you are doing a very dangerous operation on someone where the slightest mistake will mean their death.
If they die you can save all your other patients.
Do you "interfere" and kill your patient to save 5 others?

Still think most people would "pull the lever" Steele?
I wouldnt.

Like that article said, in many situations there is no "right" answer.
Autonomous cars only need to not make "wrong" decisions.

An example of this would be it would be wrong to drive onto a footpath or crash into a building to avoid a hazard on the road.