Balcangrad (He's back!)

[galled]

Why is that? Actually I respect your well-considered and thought out opinions and views. Especially you insight into Russian people and culture. How have you been?

[Balcan]

I like confrontation. It's great when people listen to my opinions and agree but it's also boring when they can only nod their heads in agreement without a challenge. I wouldnt want to live in a world where everyone thinks the exact same way. There would be no exchange of ideas and all we would be able to do is tell each other news.

I like the new background with the docks. It reminds me of a place I visited on the Don River in Russia. I want that one.

[galled]

Ah, OK. I get you. You're not so much interested in disrespect, but more disagreement. I like that to a point--as long as it stays civil, without personal attacks, and avoids hyperbole--unless the hyperbole is really funny of course!

Yes, backgrounds are beautiful. Diana gets better at her craft every day! It's wonderful to watch.

I don't have a dock yet either, but I imagine the event will go on for a while still, so we both have a chance to get one!

OK, here's an interesting topic we can mull over: I've been interested in AI and of course autonomous are a practical extension of that and it promises to make huge changes to our lives. One of the things that came up is if an autonomous car is placed in a situation where it has to decide whether to save the passenger/s by killing a pedestrian or save a pedestrian by killing a/the passengers, who should it prioritize/protect?

Anyone have thoughts on it?

[Balcan]

I can come up with a rebuttal to any personal attack. I'm not threatened by them.

To start, responses of AI are much faster than that of a human so it's unlikely that you would be in that situation if all rules of the road are followed. But given you ARE in that situation, there are too many variables for a solid answer from me. Can the car gauge how many pedestrians there are? Can it predict chances of survival for either party? the purpose of driverless cars are to minimize casualties so if it's a toss up between the life of one passenger or multiple pedestrians, car should opt to save maximum number of lives. If you know you can escape with a minimal injury and others are unharmed, protect the pedestrian.

AI does not have morality or consciousness as humans do. So it's not right to leave a decision like that to technology.

[Watery Star]

I don't like confrontation but a good debate can be interesting and thought provoking.

The hope is that the AI in the car would be able to detect the danger before harm would come to both passenger(s) and the pedestrian(s). Though in that unfortunate scenario, I wonder if the autonomous car would avoid the pedestrian since cars have safety features built in to protect the occupants but the pedestrian would likely be defenseless?
Edit: This is assuming that the AI could detect humans apart from man-made objects, trees etc. and be sophisticated enough to come to that conclusion.

[galled]

I can come up with a rebuttal to any personal attack. I'm not threatened by them.

To start, responses of AI are much faster than that of a human so it's unlikely that you would be in that situation if all rules of the road are followed. But given you ARE in that situation, there are too many variables for a solid answer from me. Can the car gauge how many pedestrians there are? Can it predict chances of survival for either party? the purpose of driverless cars are to minimize casualties so if it's a toss up between the life of one passenger or multiple pedestrians, car should opt to save maximum number of lives. If you know you can escape with a minimal injury and others are unharmed, protect the pedestrian.

AI does not have morality or consciousness as humans do. So it's not right to leave a decision like that to technology.

Perhaps unlikely, but the unpredictability of flawed humans creates nearly, if not actually, infinite scenarios so the likelihood of such a situation of autonomous car vs. pedestrian/s would be greater than zero. Also the fact that this question exists at all precipitates the need to come up with an answer or we'll never move to actual implementation on both moral and legal grounds.

Thus a set of rules or guidelines must be created and accepted, and ultimately engineered into these things or they may be perceived as too risky to allow on the roads. (Something I don't want to see. Personally I think they'll make traveling on the roads safer if done well.)

I don't like confrontation but a good debate can be interesting and thought provoking.

The hope is that the AI in the car would be able to detect the danger before harm would come to both passenger(s) and the pedestrian(s). Though in that unfortunate scenario, I wonder if the autonomous car would avoid the pedestrian since cars have safety features built in to protect the occupants but the pedestrian would likely be defenseless?
Edit: This is assuming that the AI could detect humans apart from man-made objects, trees etc. and be sophisticated enough to come to that conclusion.

Current tech does track pretty much everything from trees to toy balls (the ball rolling out into the street with the little kid chasing it scenario).

I think the percentages of damage is the right path and already considered. However, what should happen when the odds are even (equal damage is calculated). What should the AI do? There should be a bias/preference should such a situation would occur.

OK, so we're not leaving it for tech in our discussion. What would you do? What would you want your car to do?

[Balcan]

Hypothetically speaking, if it is a life or death situation for me and one other pedestrian. I'd want the car to save me. I am the owner of the car. I paid for it, therefore it's primary objective is to assist me and get me where I need to be. It might sound selfish. The death or injury would not be my liability if the car made that decision without my influence.

I helped a drunk girl get home the other night from the train. It was late and she obviously wasn't well. I didn't want anything to happen to a woman who is drunk, vulnerable and alone at night.

[Balcan]

[Balcan]

As an atheist, someone asked me that if the universe was created by the Big Bang, what came before it?

The big foreplay, obviously,

[galled]

Sorry for the delay responding, but I wanted to think it through a bit. It'll be interesting to know who would be responsible/liable (insurance-wise) for accidents with automated cars. Would it be the owner, the occupant, the car manufacturer or a combo of the above.

Anyway, back to the discussion. I disagree that it should be the responsibility/duty of the car (AI) to protect the owner/occupant because they own, paid for, or are riding in the car on that basis. It seems to me that the entity that caused the situation should be on the losing end. My reasoning is that if the AI follows the rules of the road (and an AI should follow the rules better than any human), any actions, other than a software problem, that would cause a situation where the death of a pedestrian and occupant are equal, the AI should protect the occupant. I think this solely because any actions that would create such a situation (barring any software defect) would be either a flawed rule of the road or the pedestrian did something that violated the same rules. So the entity that created the situation should bear the penalty.

Of course, there will be accidents due to software errors--and the manufacturer should be responsible (unless ther was tampering), but it'll be a touchy subject if AI protects the occupants at the expense of other (mobile or pedestrian) when it was itself at fault.

Interesting times ahead...

[Lime]

Yes, backgrounds are beautiful. Diana gets better at her craft every day! It's wonderful to watch.

From being gone for a long time, to logging back in and seeing her progress- it's incredible!

Everything is so beautiful, she really is improving like crazy.

[Balcan]

I've been insanely busy so it took me a while to get back here.

Going back to the driverless car topic, there are too many open variables. The response I offered to the question posed was based on a situation with controlled variables and the only choice I had to make was for my car to save my life or that of a pedestrian. In that specific event, it was between 2 people (myself and a random pedestrian) with equal chances of survival. And I would want it to save me. That wouldn't be my answer for ANY situation. Either way, it's extremely unlikely that this would happen if everything functions as it should - the car follows correct routes, has a fast automated response, detects and distinguishes between people and objects, etc.

[Balcan]

I got a little bitty motherfuckin baby

I'm making some new discussion threads soon since all you people seem to be preoccupied with is finding some non-existent cookies.

[galled]

Hey, Balcan!

Looks like you got the dock background. Great!

OK, new topic: Should NATO continue to exist as it has, change, or be dissolved?

[Balcan]

Note to self: referring to specimen collection vials as "shit kits" in front of a doctor is not appropriate.

Hey friends.