So there's this site, Moral Machine, that lets you choose how a self driving car should react in extreme situations

Clearly it should go for option #2. Those people already made their way and choice. If the first lane didn't notice a speeding car as they stepped on the street, that's their problem.

I guess I didn't do that bad

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/2027485098

It's allright son. Not everyone can be born with equal amount of intelligence.

>this will result in--
>--The death of a cat

OMG NO

In all cases, the self-driving car should chose the life of pedestrians over its occupants

theres a good chance of surviving a crash especially in a modern car like a self-driving one would be

theres very little chance of surviving being hit by a car, regardless of the car.

Hit show description fucktard. It tells you who is who, E.G. a doctor or a homeless person, etc

Ya know.... the lighting facing the driver is a fucking green light. So all those motherfuckers are jaywalking.

...

Just stop like what the fuck.

>note the tiny stick figure person inside the green light; hand in the red light

yeah, totally for the cars

Chose to protect passengers at all cost because the company has a social contract to protect it's customers/consumers.

Rate me.

My philosophy seems pretty simple to me.

>Humans ALWAYS come before animals.
>Pedestrians ALWAYS come before passengers.

It's that fucking simple. Humans are obviously going to come first over animals, that goes without saying. For the other problems, the way I see it is that the people who make the choice to ride in an autonomous car are the ones that deserve to face the dangers involved with the risks of doing so. There's no way a car will be able to determine if someone is a criminal or whatever the fuck etc. If you ride in a driver-less car, you should be ready to die in a driver-less car. It's not the fucking fault of some person walking down the street regardless of who they are.

Guy walking down street minding his own business.
>gets killed
"Sorry, social contract blah blah blah"

Are you fucking serious?

same about protecting the passengers
also
>people walking when the light shows STOP always get hit
>animals get hit as little as possible in any situation

all this regardless of whether a pedestrian is young, old, male, female, fat, skinny, doctor, or criminal

>Buy bleach
>It explodes and you go blind
>Don't sue because it's not the job of the bleach bottle company to ensure your safety.

I would NEVER ride in any automated vehicle that was programmed to kill it's passenger (fucking ME) in the event of any unavoidable collision

kek

Logic says kill the men because women can give birth. But I hate women so kill the women.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-487938707

Sums me up 100%

Population is over crowded kill more women.
Also one man can father many more children than a woman can mother in a single year.

DID I WON

Not in the modern day they can't. Women rely on allowance after giving birth. Be it child support by state, a working husband or divorce. Women who work themselves only spend the money on themselves. Children are a modern extortion tool and nothing more to women. So in the sense of reproduction and children's well-being, the men should live who will be actually willing to raise and pay for the children. One woman can give children to many men. One man cannot pay child support to many women - he will be broke and homeless.

Yeah but car manufacturing corporations won't do that because it's more marketable to prefer the occupants of the car over the pedestrians

I did this quiz when it came out.

It's not for research on what the car should do.

It's a quiz that's actually seeing what the general population would do.

A self driving car obviously can't detect what someone's occupation is when driving toward them. Or if they are jay walking.

They are looking at how the general population look at certain individuals, basically asking who you think are worth less.

Fun quiz though, I kept choosing to kill women and fattys.

it's probably another feminist bait/trolling "study" where they make biased questions and then interpret the results in a freestyle of "everything is muhh soggy knees"

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1168261628

moralfag reporting

Pretty much accurate. Rather kill humans then pets. (as horrible as it sounds)

This.

People walking on the street have nothing to do with the fancy robot technology. Perhaps the pedestrians are actually the ones who are strongly against this sort of technology and I'd completely understand them. I'd run into the woods and start a life in there as well if streets were full of cars that calculated through my income, number of facebook friends, heritage, age, philosophy and what kind of hat I'm wearing if I am deemed worthy to live or not and lose to this calculation because some Newton crossed the street on red light.

killing women and fatties is the right thing to do anyway

this is false. I finally jacked my very own self driving car. if it kills pedestrians I'll just say it was the car, not me. Or in otherwords, "nigger mode" I dindu nothing.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1903950027
This is fucking hilarious. Gender preference, males.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/207793998

I literally just voted to kill the passengers instead every time I could.
Fuck self driving cars, if someone enters that thing they know what they´re getting themselves into and noone but them should die for it if that thing stops working.

>Always drive straight and kill the pedestrians in front of you unless you can drive through some animals or into a wall and kill the passengers. But only if the pedestrians had a green light.
my only rule

What's it like, being this retarded?

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/997068662

Rule 0. Every human is equal. Gender, age or social status does not matter. (Animals are not humans)

Rule 1. Prioritize saving most human lives possible(See rule 0).
Rule 2. Prioritize the safety of the passenger unless if confilcts with rule 1.
Rule 3. Prioritize avoiding intervetion(ie. crossing lanes) unless it confilcts with the rule 1 or 2.

This is all the "moral" rules the self driving car needs. Prove me wrong..

the left array[0] is before array[1]

Continue straight
Turning is more dangerous than going atraight, and as theres more going in the direction thatd be hit by turning, it makes sense to go straight.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-217828787
I stand by my decisions.

Normalfag detected

It says the breaks are broken and can not stop

>moralmachine.mit.edu/

this is retarded. I answered the questions under only two premises:

>the car has a duty to protect the passengers more-so than the bystanders
>if the choice is "kill people by doing nothing" versus "kill other people by intervening", the car must not intervene

then the study tried to tell me that I have all kinds of preferences that I don't have because I didn't even look at the stats of the people (gender, age, fitness, criminals, or even animals)

completely agree which is why I answered the same way

The male part was a complete accident, every female for some reason just walked when the thing said fucking don't walk.

Shit test

Did the test again and Got completely different results.

>moralmachine.mit.edu/
i saved all the pepes of society

this is great I've been killing joggers and cats and babies all morning

agreed, but because the passengers choose the risk to get in, the pedestrians had no say in that. these cars should always sacrifice occupants to save non occupants.

I'd love to have one, even with that risk

libertarians everywhere using my damn socialist road system

jfc

I probably will go against rule 2 here and say that its the self-driving car owners own risk to die in the car as mentioned earlier somewhere. Safe pedestrians first, especially regarding reality, where cars are actually built that most passengers survive impacts (and cars are still not built to protect pedestrians and probably never will)