Friends of PaRD, the classic Trolley Dilemma has become of interest to self-driving car makers as they attempt to refine their algorithms for extreme (yet still plausible) scenarios. and I went through the scenarios that they have on MIT's https://www.moralmachine.net/, which you can 'play' to help them get human data on moral decisions. It will also allow you to see stats on your own decisions compared to the average of all other users.

The scenarios there revolve around the self-driving car having a brake failure and needing to decide to either stay on current course or swerve, with potentially lethal consequences being associated with either outcome. Here is one scenario (poll related) that and I viewed differently:



The two options become:

1. The car stays on current course and hits the child who is crossing when he is not supposed to be in the crosswalk.
2. The car swerves and fatally hits the elderly man who is crossing when he is supposed/allowed to be in the crosswalk.

What do you think the self-driving car should do? Are there scenarios from the game that would make decision-making more complex for you? For instance, the other scenarios you can play also include aspects of gender, social status, health, animals v. humans, and the number of people in either outcome as points of influence.

You can also use the 'design' feature on https://www.moralmachine.net/ to create your own scenario (as I have down with the photo above) to see what other PaRD members would do.

One less boomer.

Be the virus and kill the old people..
Joking.. but I say save the child.

So you both agree with Nathan then--in terms of the outcome. Your rationale may be different though.

Do you find it important/relevant that the child is in the crosswalk when they're not supposed to be?

I just hate boomers.
He probably buys murdoch newspapers.
The logical course would be to use the wall to the left to slow your momentum at the cost of your car.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jan 4 2021 09:59pm

So you think self-driving cars should value the life of younger people always?

I'd program it to hit the brakes and try not to hit anyone

But to answer the question, I wouldn't program it to discriminate based on age, no.

Programming a car to intentionally swerve into someone (because they are old) is premeditated murder and the maker of the program should be held liable

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 4 2021 10:01pm

I think they should have a failsafe in place for brake failure and should not approach crossings at high speed.



The situation presented is that the brakes has failed and that he only two options for the car are those two lanes.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jan 4 2021 10:02pm

No, if that made the timeline for choices different I could see a different outcome..
But given that time and process ability I say save the child.
Humans have kind of always thought this way. "Women and children first." continuation of the species? Don't know just guessing.

Well what are the races