crank wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

crank wrote:How would that work? Do you mean all the occupants in the at fault car are worth less than one not at fault? Not all accidents have someone 'at fault'.

It would operate like a waiver. If your vehicle is the cause, you would first up for sacrifice. Your car, your risk.

That could easily lead to tragedies. Like sacrificing a school bus full of kids instead of an 98 year old guy who happens to not have run red light while the bus driver got distracted by yelling fighting monsters .. uh kids. A bit unlikely, but you could come up with all kinds of similar situations.

Hiw could a bus driver become distracted in a self driving bus?

I haven't kept up on these cars for a year but prior to that, they were out driving humans on safety. That being the case, they don't need any other software because if they're 10 times safer, then the maths is already done for you and you just proceed.

Once they link the cars with a traffic system, we can say goodbye to traffic jams as well as a system can lower car speeds to (e.g.) 30mph and clearing the road ahead and should also be able to provide an almost exact arrival time as well. Cars will become like buses or trains, something you sit in until it gets there.

The real challenge, with regards to autonomous vehicles, is not technological one but legal one. In this sense, the answer to the trolly dilema is: how does law view it?

Civil or criminal?

Well, over here an act is either a crime or not. Civil in what sense? Its not possible here to have same case tired at court twice, as civil and criminal one. Either crime was committed, law broken respectively, or not, hence consequences.

There is civil law and criminal law. In criminal law the plantiff is always the state resulting in fines or imprisonment. In civil law the plantiff can be state or citizen usually invovling monetary compensation.

Practical example would be helpful. Over here, regardless of who plaintiff is, either one is found responsible or not. If not responsible, no monetary compensation, fine or imprisonment can be applied. Either way the answer to your question is: both, legal challenge for both. Especially during transition period when there will be autonomous cars and human driven.

This is easily googled. Its grade school level civics.

The article starts .. In the United States .. and I did not read further. Told you it does not work like that over here.

In case of car accidents, either one is responsible or not. It matters fuck all if its criminal or civil.

You asked "How does the law view it?" Research it for yourself then or quit being a dick.

The question was rhetorical. It was to underline the context which was: it will not be technological experts but legal ones deciding how AI in autonomous vehicles will behave. Which of course, and as usual, is the obvious and its beyond me why it prompted you to reaction. I answered your question and you are welcome. In case you missed it, its: both. Any other questions I can help you with?

Rumraket wrote:

aban57 wrote:It's acknowledged that no system is perfect. If harmful outcomes cannot be reduced to zero, at least it will be below the current human level.

If a collision is unavoidable, the report say systems must aim for harm minimisation. There must be no discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, physical attributes or anything else of any potential accident victim.

All humans are considered equal for the purposes of harm minimisation.

This makes sense to me.

I think I'd steer into someone who looks like me rather than take out a child. It might be a bit harder choice between my wife and a child.

I think I'd only want to add the caveat that it should, if at all possible, try to hit fewer rather than more people.

So htting a car with a single driver instead of a car with a family seems like an obvious choise to me. Try hitting the car with a single driver rather than one with a family if those are the only choises available. I don't know whether that sort of identification is technically feasible atm though.

How about if probability, and AI will likely work with such probabilities unlike human driver, of fatality for action A - child is 30% while for action B - adult is 60%?

It almost never will be binary, 50-50, situation. Hence questionable relevance of the trolly dilema which is binary.

Driverless autos have a hard time when driver is dead, lord.
Driverless autos have a hard time when driver is dead, lord.
They don't have anywhere to go;
Might as well break down and wait for the tow.
Nobody drives you like a driver will when your driver is dead, lord.

with apologies to Eric Clapton

tuco wrote:How about if probability, and AI will likely work with such probabilities unlike human driver, of fatality for action A - child is 30% while for action B - adult is 60%?

It almost never will be binary, 50-50, situation. Hence questionable relevance of the trolly dilema which is binary.

The original one, yes. That's why there are so many variants, with different approaches. The human mind is too complex to be apprehended by a yes/no question. The more questions you ask , the more info you get.

tuco wrote:The question was rhetorical.

I don't even know why anyone engages with you. You're a living derail.

Indeed, you dont even know why you engage with me, however, no I am a living topic.

Civil or criminal? ... lol

John Platko wrote:

I think I'd steer into someone who looks like me rather than take out a child. It might be a bit harder choice between my

I'm not sure you'd have the time to make that decision. What you CAN do though is drive slower. At 30mph the chance off killing a child is 20%

40 mph 0-5% survival
35 mph 20% survival
30 mph 80% survival

and each MPH you come down from there the odds massively go up and with driverless cars... you can install speed control so they all drive at 28mph in neighbourhoods, something I made a case for a decade ago.

Their radars also are at full attention, all the time. If you're at full attention, all the time you don't have an accident. So the question isn't about who are you going to hit but more of a, hitting people isn't even in the ball park anymore.