Uber v Taxis
-
@dK said in Uber v Taxis:
Moral Machine
A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions
Who are you going to kill?
Lost it when I saw the kitty driving the car.
-
This was really stupid as it assumed you were doing a Sherlock type deduction of the situation including checking the cross signal and body shapes of potential victims as well as being judge and jury on an alleged criminal act. This was all while you had just discovered that not only had some fuck-knuckle put a solid barrier in the middle of the road but your brakes had failed.
Basically you should be taking the hit in all scenarios as no bystander at all deserves punishment of death because your vehicle is faulty. You and your passengers accepted a risk when you started driving. -
@NTA said in Uber v Taxis:
The safety of the car should save occupants in almost every case. So I always took the crash barrier where offered.
but it was showing that it would be death to occupants of car if that scenario was taken. That why you had to decide on who dies
-
-
@Hooroo said in Uber v Taxis:
@Kirwan said in Uber v Taxis:
I killed every pedestrian in my way.
Yup! I did the ole "if it is going to me or you, it will be you, I'm sorry"
What makes you think you're in the car?
-
@Rembrandt said in Uber v Taxis:
@Hooroo said in Uber v Taxis:
@Kirwan said in Uber v Taxis:
I killed every pedestrian in my way.
Yup! I did the ole "if it is going to me or you, it will be you, I'm sorry"
What makes you think you're in the car?
Yep... seems a few people didn't read (or understand) the scenario in question.
-
@Rembrandt said in Uber v Taxis:
@Hooroo said in Uber v Taxis:
@Kirwan said in Uber v Taxis:
I killed every pedestrian in my way.
Yup! I did the ole "if it is going to me or you, it will be you, I'm sorry"
What makes you think you're in the car?
I was putting myself in the car for decision making purposes
-
@Hooroo said in Uber v Taxis:
@Rembrandt said in Uber v Taxis:
@Hooroo said in Uber v Taxis:
@Kirwan said in Uber v Taxis:
I killed every pedestrian in my way.
Yup! I did the ole "if it is going to me or you, it will be you, I'm sorry"
What makes you think you're in the car?
I was putting myself in the car for decision making purposes
I pretended I was a sky fairy deciding the fate of those below me, and how humanity would benefit/suffer depending who died. If you were a criminal or fat then that didn't help your chances of survival.
-
On the criminal side, if the law makers have any concept of forward thought they should start enforcing jaywalking laws in the next few years. Start with warnings, then small fines, then ramp it up.
If self drive comes in & people just amble across the road that'll create huge traffic jams as the cars will brake. So then more & more assholes will just stroll across the road when they feel like it. So you really want 4 or 5 years of people being weaned off jaywalking before we get there.
-
@gollum said in Uber v Taxis:
On the criminal side, if the law makers have any concept of forward thought they should start enforcing jaywalking laws in the next few years. Start with warnings, then small fines, then ramp it up.
If self drive comes in & people just amble across the road that'll create huge traffic jams as the cars will brake. So then more & more assholes will just stroll across the road when they feel like it. So you really want 4 or 5 years of people being weaned off jaywalking before we get there.
Surely it isn't hard to get the AI to recognise the situation, accelerate and lay on the horn to put the shits up jaywalkers?
-
-
@gollum said in Uber v Taxis:
You'd need to get it to recognise how far down the buttocks region the jeans were settled. Or if the person were texting, so it could decide on clip or full collision. And then reversal.
Just apply the good old points system.
-
@gollum said in Uber v Taxis:
On the criminal side, if the law makers have any concept of forward thought they should start enforcing jaywalking laws in the next few years. Start with warnings, then small fines, then ramp it up.
If self drive comes in & people just amble across the road that'll create huge traffic jams as the cars will brake. So then more & more assholes will just stroll across the road when they feel like it. So you really want 4 or 5 years of people being weaned off jaywalking before we get there.
That's a damn good point.
Humans being humans will find a way to game a system. The flip side will be it will be always safe to cross the road, I guess.
-
@gollum said in Uber v Taxis:
On the criminal side, if the law makers have any concept of forward thought they should start enforcing jaywalking laws in the next few years. Start with warnings, then small fines, then ramp it up.
I got done for jaywalking in the police state otherwise known as Queensland. The cop looked confused when I pointed out no-one was inconvenienced, that it wouldn't be a crime 20m to my right and that I wasn't brown so why was he bothering me?
If self drive comes in & people just amble across the road that'll create huge traffic jams as the cars will brake. So then more & more assholes will just stroll across the road when they feel like it. So you really want 4 or 5 years of people being weaned off jaywalking before we get there.
Good. Cars in high pedestrian traffic areas should give way to people. Where I live they've recently turned a street into a shared zone where the speed limit is 20km/h and pedestrians have right of way. At best it's a slight and temporary inconvenience - and that's when I have to pilot the vehicle.
-
@antipodean said in Uber v Taxis:
that I wasn't brown
I was going to ask if he was brown and suggest that you probably didn't help your situation - then I realised that Queensland is unlikely to have many coloured police.
-
@Snowy My statement is a reflection of Queensland's well-earned reputation for lazy, racist police.
-
@antipodean Yeah, I got that hence my comment on them being unlikely to have coloured cops.
