A modern and very real dilema

[Siz]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615124719.htm

The technology may have arrived, but are we ready?
Google's cars can already handle real-world hazards, such as cars' suddenly swerving in front of them. But in some situations, a crash is unavoidable. (In fact, Google's cars have been in dozens of minor accidents, all of which the company blames on human drivers.) How will a Google car, or an ultra-safe Volvo, be programmed to handle a no-win situation -- a blown tire, perhaps -- where it must choose between swerving into oncoming traffic or steering directly into a retaining wall? The computers will certainly be fast enough to make a reasoned judgment within milliseconds. They would have time to scan the cars ahead and identify the one most likely to survive a collision, for example, or the one with the most other humans inside. But should they be programmed to make the decision that is best for their owners? Or the choice that does the least harm -- even if that means choosing to slam into a retaining wall to avoid hitting an oncoming school bus? Who will make that call, and how will they decide?

[Crow]

No more ready than any other technology that has been released. You can argue about hypothetical ethics but it is usually just best to place it in users hands and see what happens. Looking at the statistics of traffic related incidents it is only logical that if people want to own personal transportation then the ability to manually drive is removed as nobody is really as good as they like to think and an accident is ultimately inevitable. Hackers are the bigger concern though.

[Siz]

What this article doesn't say is what protocols are currently being used with regard to this dilema. The fact is, before this technology can be rolled-out the question needs answering. At least I certainly wouldn't ride in one of these without knowing how my driver is likely to act in a given situation. I'd certainly want mine programmed deontologically but even if this were outlawed, I'd want to know what I was getting in to.

Potentially, both utilitarian and deontological programming could be abused. Traffic could be manipulated to achieve sinister outcomes - presumably much more reliably than with human drivers.

And indeed, the security of programming must be paramount. Could home-brew programming be developed where tolerance settings to deontological programming be set to a hair-trigger? Or even programmed to drive like a wide-boy in a suped-up hot-hatch where outcomes of excessive speeds are stacked in favour of the idiot.

[Crow]

What this article doesn't say is what protocols are currently being used with regard to this dilema. The fact is, before this technology can be rolled-out the question needs answering. At least I certainly wouldn't ride in one of these without knowing how my driver is likely to act in a given situation. I'd certainly want mine programmed deontologically but even if this were outlawed, I'd want to know what I was getting in to.

Potentially, both utilitarian and deontological programming could be abused. Traffic could be manipulated to achieve sinister outcomes - presumably much more reliably than with human drivers.

And indeed, the security of programming must be paramount. Could home-brew programming be developed where tolerance settings to deontological programming be set to a hair-trigger? Or even programmed to drive like a wide-boy in a suped-up hot-hatch where outcomes of excessive speeds are stacked in favour of the idiot.

Do you know how you are going to act in an emergency situation?  I don't. An outcome arises on instinct and I know even less so when I am a passenger or on public transport, due to that the type of programming isn't really an issue for me as long as it works. From an ethical position a utilitarian focused system makes more sense in a systematic network where the aim is to be efficient and maintain a higher overall level of safety, if the focus is to maintain the utility of the most users as possible then in the event of an emergency the utility of the masses comes before the utility of the individual, by making people feel happy or content you can paint over many of the cracks something I wish the train network in the UK would embrace.

Most modern cars can already be hacked, the more the car is reliant on a electronics – which is pretty much every modern car – the more susceptible with some quite frightening things currently possible, the difference with the driver-less vehicles is that they are more effective when they can communicate with each other which gives hackers a massive reach, rather than focusing on the individual car they focus on the communication network and use this to adjust the other systems.

[Recusant]

It seems clear that "it will be safer for you, the driver" is the only response to the ethical questions in the article that would sell these to the public. I think that an elected government would be hard put to get away with a decision to enact laws or regulations that decree self-driving cars must be programmed in such a way as to result in greater harm to the driver and their passengers, even if it's done to protect the public. One way to achieve that might be government subsidies for vehicles with utilitarian programming. Of course then we would have more well-off people being able to purchase "selfish" cars. Not so different than the way it is now.   

[Insoluble]

I don't think people should be moving about at speed.
Why cant you just find a place that suits and stay?
We all know who is controlling the lights anyway.

[Crow]

It seems clear that "it will be safer for you, the driver" is the only response to the ethical questions in the article that would sell these to the public. I think that an elected government would be hard put to get away with a decision to enact laws or regulations that decree self-driving cars must be programmed in such a way as to result in greater harm to the driver and their passengers, even if it's done to protect the public. One way to achieve that might be government subsidies for vehicles with utilitarian programming. Of course then we would have more well-off people being able to purchase "selfish" cars. Not so different than the way it is now.   

It could also be the begining of a totally different economic base like all other systems that have become networked and offer a service it could easily be turned it into a microtransactions. Want to get priority over other cars pay an extra $2 per mile, want to open the window pay $1. Want to see where you are going pay $5.

[Recusant]

I don't think people should be moving about at speed.
Why cant you just find a place that suits and stay?
We all know who is controlling the lights anyway.

   That ship has sailed.

[Recusant]

It could also be the begining of a totally different economic base like all other systems that have become networked and offer a service it could easily be turned it into a microtransactions. Want to get priority over other cars pay an extra $2 per mile, want to open the window pay $1. Want to see where you are going pay $5.