Report Drivers Prefer Autonomous Cars That Don't Kill Them

[tom_mai78101]

A car is about to hit a dozen pedestrians. Is it better for the car to veer off the road and kill the driver but save the pedestrians? Or is it better to save the driver and kill all those other people? That's the thorny philosophical question that the makers of autonomous vehicles -- self-driving cars -- are grappling with these days, and a new study sheds some light on what people actually want that car to do.

It turns out that the answer depends on whether you are the driver of the car or not. People generally think it's a good idea for autonomous vehicles to save the most lives. The study calls this a utilitarian autonomous vehicle, which fits the utilitarian moral doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Generally, people would like it if everyone would use cars that saved the most lives, even if they had to sacrifice the life of the driver to do so. With one exception.

They don't want to have to buy this kind of car for themselves.

Generally, for themselves, people would prefer to buy the vehicle that would ensure for the greatest safety for the driver and passengers.

"Even though participants still agreed that utilitarian AVs were the most moral, they preferred the self-protective model for themselves," the authors of the study wrote.

Drivers Prefer Autonomous Cars That Don't Kill Them | InformationWeek

A new study shows that most people prefer that self-driving cars be programmed to save the most people in the event of an accident, even if it kills the driver. Unless they are the drivers.

www.informationweek.com

 

[Mahucharn]

Interesting article - really shows the cost/benefit mentality of society.

 

[Varine]

I think the cars should be equal and try to kill everyone. That way no one is left out.

 

[Accname]

The car should run over the pedestrians and then release toxic gas inside to kill the passengers.

 

[tom_mai78101]

The car should run over the pedestrians and then release toxic gas inside to kill the passengers.

Is this a deja vu or something? I swear I read about this in a Japanese dystopian manga.

 

[Accname]

I dont know. I am dystopian all by myself right now.

 

[Varine]

he's just prepping himself for the eventual fall of his continent. Germany is bound to start some kind of bullshit at some point, and whatever little country he's in is fucked until we come save them again.

 

[Accname]

You muricans cant even save yourself. The trump will getcha all and take ya down.
And I wouldnt be worried about the krauts. Its more the russians you should be lookin at. Between ukrain and syria you really get the feeling they have an itch to waste somebody.

 

[FireCat]

Better to safe all the people" Nuff said!

 

[Varine]

Holy shit, speak of the devil and Cheshire returns.

Russia is the only one actively NOT starting a fuck ton of wars. The Krauts gotta be getting pissed off, I mean they've been paying for whatever fucking country you're in because of the EU that's falling apart to make up for the Nazi thing, and they gotta be getting close to realizing that the Nazi thing was the only time anyone actually kind of respected Germany. I mean, they can't even make good caps for Jager anymore. Russia is professional, they just wait until someone else starts the war and then finishes that shit like a boss.

 

[Accname]

They did start the war with ukraine. It may not be an "official" war, but I doubt that even you are stupid enough not to understand whats going on there.

Germany on the oter hand desperately needs the EU. Sure, they pay more money than they get back directly, but Germany is a nation with a very strong export. They need other countries to export their shit to. Without the EU, they wouldnt be able to sell their shit as good as they are doing right now.

 

[FireCat]

No! It wasn't me! seph ir oth

 

[Varine]

You mean the annexation of Crimea? That started as a revolution with Russia defending their financial pacts, and they WERE technically defending the current sovereignty at the time.

 

[Accname]

You mean the annexation of Crimea? That started as a revolution with Russia defending their financial pacts, and they WERE technically defending the current sovereignty at the time.

bs and you know it. Pathetic varyne.

 

[Varine]

How is it bullshit? Ukraine was on the border of financial collapse and their president took their bailout, admittedly under threat of losing their oil supply, over the EU and IMF offer, which was then followed by a separatist movement and what Russia considered a coup d'etat made militarized action, which is basically their go to, and since then Ukraine has been relatively stable. Tell me again how the EU handled those problems in Greece as effectively?