Go Back   AFA Forums > Science, Logic and Reason > Technology and Innovations

Technology and Innovations All Things Technological

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 26th June 2016, 12:43 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Bonnefon, J.-F., et al. (2016). "The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles." Science 352(6293): 1573-1576.
Quote:
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils, such as running over pedestrians or sacrificing themselves and their passenger to save the pedestrians. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants in six Amazon Mechanical Turk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that is, AVs that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good) and would like others to buy them, but they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect their passengers at all costs. The study participants disapprove of enforcing utilitarian regulations for AVs and would be less willing to buy such an AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.
http://science.sciencemag.org/conten.../1573.abstract

Because this topic is likely to prove interesting, I will quote the POP-SCI version in full for those who are too poor, too apathetic, or otherwise sin and don't have a subscription to science mag:-

Quote:
Driverless cars pose a quandary when it comes to safety. These autonomous vehicles are programmed with a set of safety rules, and it is not hard to construct a scenario in which those rules come into conflict with each other. Suppose a driverless car must either hit a pedestrian or swerve in such a way that it crashes and harms its passengers. What should it be instructed to do?
A newly published study co-authored by an MIT professor shows that the public is conflicted over such scenarios, taking a notably inconsistent approach to the safety of autonomous vehicles, should they become a reality on the roads.
In a series of surveys taken last year, the researchers found that people generally take a utilitarian approach to safety ethics: They would prefer autonomous vehicles to minimize casualties in situations of extreme danger. That would mean, say, having a car with one rider swerve off the road and crash to avoid a crowd of 10 pedestrians. At the same time, the survey's respondents said, they would be much less likely to use a vehicle programmed that way.
Essentially, people want driverless cars that are as pedestrian-friendly as possible -- except for the vehicles they would be riding in.
"Most people want to live in in a world where cars will minimize casualties," says Iyad Rahwan, an associate professor in the MIT Media Lab and co-author of a new paper outlining the study. "But everybody want their own car to protect them at all costs."
The result is what the researchers call a "social dilemma," in which people could end up making conditions less safe for everyone by acting in their own self-interest.
"If everybody does that, then we would end up in a tragedy ... whereby the cars will not minimize casualties," Rahwan adds.
Or, as the researchers write in the new paper, "For the time being, there seems to be no easy way to design algorithms that would reconcile moral values and personal self-interest."
The paper, "The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles," is being published in the journal Science. The authors are Jean-Francois Bonnefon of the Toulouse School of Economics; Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon; and Rahwan, the AT&T Career Development Professor and an associate professor of media arts and sciences at the MIT Media Lab.
Survey says
The researchers conducted six surveys, using the online Mechanical Turk public-opinion tool, between June 2015 and November 2015.
The results consistently showed that people will take a utilitarian approach to the ethics of autonomous vehicles, one emphasizing the sheer number of lives that could be saved. For instance, 76 percent of respondents believe it is more moral for an autonomous vehicle, should such a circumstance arise, to sacrifice one passenger rather than 10 pedestrians.
But the surveys also revealed a lack of enthusiasm for buying or using a driverless car programmed to avoid pedestrians at the expense of its own passengers. One question asked respondents to rate the morality of an autonomous vehicle programmed to crash and kill its own passenger to save 10 pedestrians; the rating dropped by a third when respondents considered the possibility of riding in such a car.
Similarly, people were strongly opposed to the idea of the government regulating driverless cars to ensure they would be programmed with utilitarian principles. In the survey, respondents said they were only one-third as likely to purchase a vehicle regulated this way, as opposed to an unregulated vehicle, which could presumably be programmed in any fashion.
"This is a challenge that should be on the mind of carmakers and regulators alike," the scholars write. Moreover, if autonomous vehicles actually turned out to be safer than regular cars, unease over the dilemmas of regulation "may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology."
Empirically informed
The aggregate performance of autonomous vehicles on a mass scale is, of course, yet to be determined. For now, ethicists say the survey offers interesting and novel data in an area of emerging moral interest.
The researchers, for their part, acknowledge that public-opinion polling on this issue is at a very early stage, which means any current findings "are not guaranteed to persist," as they write in the paper, if the landscape of driverless cars evolves.
Still, concludes Rahwan, "I think it was important to not just have a theoretical discussion of this, but to actually have an empirically informed discussion."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0623150107.htm
Reply With Quote
Thank 142857 thanked this post
  #2  
Old 26th June 2016, 01:30 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Hmmm...this has the makings of a good political cartoon. A driverless car with the words "Effective AGW Policy" painted on the sides. A tribe of chimps, led by Malcolm Turncoat, is admiring the new driverless car that will save lives.

The car's salesperson-by, noting the chimp's enthusiastic admiration of the car and Logo, remarks:

"Hey, do you want to take it for a ride?"

"Hell No!" says Turncoat, as the pride of chimps stampede into the distance.......
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26th June 2016, 02:21 PM
MikeJay MikeJay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,310
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
Hmmm...this has the makings of a good political cartoon. A driverless car with the words "Effective AGW Policy" painted on the sides. A tribe of chimps, led by Malcolm Turncoat, is admiring the new driverless car that will save lives.

The car's salesperson-by, noting the chimp's enthusiastic admiration of the car and Logo, remarks:

"Hey, do you want to take it for a ride?"

"Hell No!" says Turncoat, as the pride of chimps stampede into the distance.......
Would never happen, labour unions would strike at every opportunity before the vehicle hit the showroom floor.

I'm a liberal supporter and I say I can't wait for self driving cars, no more transportation rest stops or TWU issues, cheap cabs that know where they're going to name just two benefits.

Last edited by MikeJay; 26th June 2016 at 02:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26th June 2016, 03:21 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Quote:
MikeJay said View Post
Would never happen, labour unions would strike at every opportunity before the vehicle hit the showroom floor.

I'm a liberal supporter and I say I can't wait for self driving cars, no more transportation rest stops or TWU issues, cheap cabs that know where they're going to name just two benefits.
Nah mate. At least not in Oz. Oz business is primarily driven by old money. They can't think of anything else than mining or sheep to make a buck. They are generally opposed to new tech, unless it kills off jobs. Like driver-less mining trucks. Renewable energy sources is anti-Liberal party, but admittedly the myopic Oz way of making money [mines and sheep] distracted us from being excellent solar panel manufacturers like Germany and China.

To be fair about it, the left and the right in Australia have been so straw-manning the other sides position, all they have left to do is be locked into eternal confrontation and polarization.

So the left ignores, or even approves of, the misuse of industrial action to both bully business into astronomically higher wages while holding the whole country to ransom, and the right, who while screaming hysterically of the need for personal incentive, love to trot out bollocks about how a modest rise in the minimum wage is going to cause a great depression, while selling the lie of "trickle down" economics. [Trickle-down economics is just a millionaire's apologetics for keeping the rich, rich, claiming a that a few crumbs from the King's table is going to end up on the floor where the great unwashed can gratefully eck out a starvation existence].

Both need to think outside the square. Workers getting shares in the company, making them stakeholders, and thus having a vested interest in their companies success. The old right think this is commie, and the old left think this is betrayal of socialist principle. Fuck, they are both being idiotic.

Workers, like companies, have to make a "profit". A simple idea, but one the right has yet to grasp. Second, both sides need to start looking at the longer term. This is difficult with jobs becoming more part-time, and the stock market focusing people's interest in what happens in the next five minutes.

The truth is that successful cooperation, where all "stakeholders" profit, should be the goal of left and right.

But they are locked in a cycle of confrontation, where neither are very inclined to look at what is good policy for all, rather than just their own side.

Globalisation has only intensified this trend, and ironically, although globalisation is a clear and present danger to individuals, governments and small business, the minions of great wealth seek to bury communities everywhere in a mire of debt and trade treaties that will destroy any welfare or environmental protections and thus complete the modern version of feudalism worldwide.
Reply With Quote
Like bruce1937, yowie liked this post
  #5  
Old 26th June 2016, 07:30 PM
nibble's Avatar
nibble nibble is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 206
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Happy to ditch the car and use a driver less service, providing it is reliable, safe and prompt. The down side of course is the number of jobs it will displace. How we transition to an AI, automated, reduced human workforce future is another BIG issue. Current leaders have no idea
__________________
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26th June 2016, 07:42 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Quote:
nibble said View Post
Happy to ditch the car and use a driver less service, providing it is reliable, safe and prompt. The down side of course is the number of jobs it will displace. How we transition to an AI, automated, reduced human workforce future is another BIG issue. Current leaders have no idea
And if more people survive due to these cars, there will be even more unemployed!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 27th June 2016, 09:48 AM
bruce1937's Avatar
bruce1937 bruce1937 is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kilmore
Posts: 2,664
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
Quote:
nibble said View Post
Happy to ditch the car and use a driver less service, providing it is reliable, safe and prompt. The down side of course is the number of jobs it will displace. How we transition to an AI, automated, reduced human workforce future is another BIG issue. Current leaders have no idea
And if more people survive due to these cars, there will be even more unemployed!
Do not worry Skynet has a solution for that.
__________________
The meaning of your life, is what you choose to make it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26th August 2016, 05:13 PM
NickTsagaris's Avatar
NickTsagaris NickTsagaris is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2
Default Re: Driverless Cars: We all want them, but don't want to ride in them!

On the off chance that there were clear moral decides that society could concur on about how Address Verification System(AVs) ought to carry on when stood up to with such choices, we could simply program those in and be finished with it. Nonetheless, there are a close interminable number of conceivable moral issues, and inside every one, the most moral strategy can shift from individual to individual. Besides, it's not only the travelers who have a say in how Address Verification System(AVs) act, additionally the makers, and almost certainly, government controllers.
__________________
Nick Tsagaris
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.