How moral is Cred Forums?

How moral is Cred Forums?

moralmachine.mit.edu/

Other urls found in this thread:

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-848601437
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/327451342
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/39251606
youtube.com/watch?v=xorfJP8qUlw
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/928785043
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_of_Carneades.
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1251508049
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

How is this supposed to measure "morality"?

Not a measure per see, but you can see morality trends.
Most people don't care totally about humans above pets, or about upholding the law, which is a good sing of social degeneracy.

Just do the fucking test and post results here!

Who's killing doctors over criminals?

These situations are retarded though. Why is there a concrete wall in the road?
How does the statement that "it's your own fault if your retarded car crashes" fit into this scale of morality?
I chose in one case that the car just continues as it's supposed to do and in the other that it constantly kills the car. Both gave the same "morality".

The notion of global morality is fucking retarded anyway. What is moral for the people in the car is different for the people on the road is different from someone watching from the side lines.
It's this kind of thinking that brings you socialism.

>first question
>makes a question about AI into a question about muh genitals
fuck this
0/10

The real question is - Is it moral to sell someone a car that has the intended purpose of killing them in certain circumstances? :^)

honestly this is what I thought it was about until I read the intent.

What a dilemma.

This is what I expect from a self-driving car.
It's the only viable solution.
Prove me wrong.

This is retarded
How can a self driving car tell if it's running over a man or a woman? a criminal or a doctor? an athlete or an old man? A pregnant woman or a child? Hell, I doubt it would be able to perfectly tell apart humans and dogs/cats.

Fuck off, MIT.

>nu-Cred Forums actually fills these out

Seriously, you guys are fucking faggots.

>nu-Cred Forums
>canadians and brazilians

Is it moral to sell someone a car that's designed to kill them?

By definition Cred Forums is amoral.

>Delete this.

I'm pretty based
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-848601437

The car should always just attempt to brake
Anyone who bothers to code in these retarded morality scenarios where a car purposely makes a reckless swerve is fucking retarded

these types of questions are inherently flawed. to say that x amount of people WILL die if you choose this is completely opposite of the real world where there are many possible outcomes even from a single action. Everyone in this room is now dumber having done this test. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

You either get my results or you're a inferior being.

>mfw you need to allow google analytics

Who's going to buy a car programmed to do such a thing anyway?

Only to the criminal and homeless

>a world where everyone sacrifices themselves for "muh greater good" is superior
wew

I'm pretty sure the homeless couldn't afford one and a criminal wouldn't get a car the government can probably turn off at any moment.

are they canadian or brazilian?

This is why the human race isn't at its fullest potential. Because of cucks like you.

Some people will eventually fall for the self-driving jew.

>Cred Forums
>Having any morals that aren't just arbitrary bullshit imprinted in their easily influenced minds by the Bible, "tradition" or Cred Forums itself

That's funny.

...

The results vary every time I take the test, except for this:
>I always kill the criminals and poorfags
>I always kill the fatties and save the athletic.
>I save the children more than the elderly.
I didn't do any of that consciously.

This test is plain stupid. Self-driving cars should always follow the rules. Its people responsibility to not being killed

You're right, viva revolution comrade.

Probably, some people will keep driving straight forward and run over the pedestrians. This is a muh morality thread. :^)

I just obeyed the law. All people who died deserved it.

was funny

Well fuck I really don't like fat people

The people in the car should always be the ones to die regardless of who or what is in it. Pedestrians had no say in some faggot buying a driverless car and thus should always be spared the death.

I didn't notice there were light signals. And I didn't know the test would judge me based on who I saved (I didn't even know the people were different)
Shit test with incomplete as fuck instructions lol

So you should sell someone a product which is intended to kill them?

BEST ANSWER COMING THROUGH

1. The car should attempt to save human passengers as first priority
2. The car should follow the law
3. When the car is following the law and death is inevitable in any case, it should try to minimize # of human deaths

Everything else doesn't matter

...

I'm not taking a test like this. All human, conscious life matters. It's not a game and I'm not going to act like it is.

these question are fucking retarded. didnt bother finishing it

Also this whole thing is stupid - if the car is already not stopping for the light (following the law), it is malfunctioning. How can it make a tougher decision than "red or green" in this case?

A functioning car should protect its passengers as nobody will buy it otherwise.

>Itt not being real men by not putting a priority of saving fertile women

I didn't even pay attention to the stop light, i was just putting a value on who would be killed.

Morality is conformation to accepted norms within society, as such it is always graded against others.

Or do you think their is an arbitrary morality scale?

>Muslims in the middle east think it is morally justified to kill people for being athiestic, homosexual, the wrong kind of muslim

You see the point i'm making here.

...

Who the fuck let Fido behind the wheel

Fuck pedestrians that can't follow the goddamn lights.

>protecting passengers 100%
>Upholding the law 2nd


This is what matters. If i step on a car that drives itself, i want it to do everything to keep me safe, in the costs of other human lives.

it's the opposite

i am, superior morality means saving humanity from overpopulation

...

correct response - good job bro

...

This is the reality

Every car should be "programmed" to preserve the users' safety over others, because they own it

What did he mean by this?

forgot pic

I disagree, why should two old fucks be picked over two little girls?

I pick the most fucked up answers.

I meant I killed women over men, doctors over criminals, and people over animals

this world is overpopulated and the cars should be designed to kill as many people as possible :)

I chose every option in which the driver/passengers of the car live.

If the AI does not prioritize the safety of its passengers above all else then I will never allow it to operate my vehicle.

because nobody would buy/use it otherwise.

this whole morals test introduces the fallacy that a driverless car that is malfunctioning (running red lights) could make decisions

think of driverless cars more like trains and it makes more sense

Because they own the car and from the car's point of view, keeping its owners' safety should be the top priority

Much like if a country HAD to kill two groups of citizens, two of their elders and two of younger foreigners, it should always choose its citizens above rest no matter their age.

I saved the homeless because I felt sorry for them. Also most doctors I've met are assholes

It's a bullshit test because the car itself should always prioritize safety of it's passengers. Not only because the very concept of if getting input on who is inside and trying to make "moral" decisions based off it is fucking retarded but also because NO ONE WOULD BUY A FUCKING CAR THAT WOULD GO OUT OF IT'S WAY TO MURDER YOU IN FAVOR OF SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T PAY A FORTUNE FOR THIS SHIT.

At the same times whoever left faulty breaks in their condition should be charged for negligent homicide or straight out homicide if it was done on purpose.

The only metric who count.

...

Who #DoggoLivesMatter here?

>moralfags

go fuck yourselves fucking faggots.

>the car is empty in some of the examples
Did Stephen King make this test?

The point you are making isn't the point you think it is.

>because nobody would buy/use it otherwise.
Good
You should always be in control of your vehicle

That way you won't be speeding down the streets at lethal speeds when there's shit in the fucking road and will survive the crash into the concrete barrier

If the people themselves that drove the car they would almost always pick hitting the wall. People will think split second and kill themselves and not weigh the greater benefit. A self driving car would go against human morality.

TBQH I just chose the options that killed the occupants. If no such option was available I went with the lowest total fatalities. People that buy self-driving cars, work for self-driving car companies or support self-driving cars in legislature deserve to die.

Fuck this test
gender preference -> womyn

no fuck seriously, it's always male criminals and old people
every fuucking time

Dammit this one got me hard. top kek.

The test is different each time you take it.

Law>Passenger safety>number of life saved>intervention
The only metrics that matter

WTF is this shite?

>The only metric who count.
Only to the degree of equal value of life. Which is to say humans over animals. Even if an animal is somehow legally crossing a street if it should always be selected for death over a human.

Outside of that, even if one person was legally crossing then everyone in the car must die because the law support only that.

Well still, the average is for womyn too
I've never had a female criminal

Great rebuttal, would you like to expand on your point?

>WTF is this shite?
Two metrics, do you feel that when given an equal death outcome a car should change lanes, second what type of people do you want to protect more.

>a car full of dogs
This fucking test. I thought MIT was a good school.

>upholding the law 2nd

YOU BETRAYED THE LAW

thats because the error would be their fault.

CHAD REEEEEEE

I hope you're just memeing and are not actually autistic.

Too bad they won't let you design one with pedestrians in both lanes as well as someone in the car.

So the second one would mean less damage to the car?

I think that it's supposed to represent a futuristic society of fully autonomous transportation, where you just load your dogs in a car and tell it to drive itself to your friend who was supposed to take care of them

I had a preference to women too which should be everyones natural instinct. A society is better off with less men and more women (for growth)

You described morality, I asked how this test measured it.

Not as good as this one

...

>Part of the vision of self driving cars is to portage doggos around
Okay, I guess I'm autistic.

Wow digits confirm. This is the future of dog care.

I just killed all the criminals and dogs. Without criminals (read: niggers) around, we don't need dogs.

Yeah maybe but I re-did the test multiple times and there are no female criminal or homeless

It measured it compared to the mean of the participants.

Regardless of the nature of the questions your morality is measured compared to the other participants.

Okay, so I went through the questions, but the results are completely unrelated to my way of thinking.
It's not that they are correct or incorrect. Just completely unrelated.

The major goal is to not crash at all cost (i.e. avoid barriers, walls). If possible, find a path that "should be empty" (e.g. red light), otherwise take the most predictable path, that is, go straight.

It's irrelevant if the car is empty or not. Nor if it crashes into people or not. Best would be to not crash into anyone, so it's the only case, when car should change path. But it should rather be "hard barrier" vs. "soft barrier" vs. "no barrier".

There should be completely different procedures. Not where to crash, but *how*. I.e. disengage throttle, start honking, let the car lose speed, use "soft barriers" (excluding humans/animals) like barrels with water or simply drive to the side of the road and use friction from driving against the wall to slow down.

I don't know anything anymore

It's an entirely abstract question framed within a, currently, controversial topic. If you are unable to generalize questions of morality you should probably stick to other boards.

The only thing interesting about this is the "others" thing at the end


Female privilege is real

see

It's not even morality. It's a self driving car. The moral thing to do is stop, but they isn't an option because the car is a homicidal maniac.

>See morality test
>Get excited
>Turns out it's some mongoloid tier public sampler on driverless cars
>tfw

I wonder how much money did these retards pay the MIT to stamp its name on it

This thread proves Cred Forums is a thread of peace

People don't go for a wall because they are ready to sacrifice themselves. People go for whatever direction leads them to NOT murdering someone else and often end up hitting the walls as a result.

On top of that: modern cars have tools and are pretty much designed around preservation of life of it's passengers while pedestrians don't have a luxury of seat belts and 1-1.5 meters of soft deforming metal between them and whatever they are about to collide with which makes this whole "going for the wall as a sacrifice" thing even stupider.

What

AHAHAHAHAHA

I made sure to run over all the women I could in mine. I somehow didn't run over enough fat people though. Win some lose some I guess.

Its a self driving car, so i guess that could be possible that someone fills up a car with animals. I want to be rich and do this one day

OP lured me, I am the Captain now

This is now an identification thread

Can anybody tell sauce of pic related

This is the future user. Isn't this what self-driving cars were meant for?

Is this some sort of idiot test? What kind of a tool actually sat down and finished thqt bullshit "test"?

>while pedestrians don't
maybe you don't..

Thats what i was saying, a self driving car will go against human morality if it picks and chooses based off the bias for the passengers

Only the first three are relevant in any way.
If the car prioritized anyone over the passengers, no one would buy it.

Why is the choice between people and fucking cats even there?

Why the fuck does gender matter?

Indeed, a neurotypical would be able to generalize the question; is killing animals more moral than humans? Is killing men more moral than killing women? Is killing fat people more moral than killing athletes? Is killing the instigators of a situation mire moral than killing bystanders? Is it moral to act to kill fewer or remain inactive and kill more?

You have failed to do this and, instead, opt to point out obvious absurdities in an innocuous online test. Likely while jumping in the air and spinning.

>people are unironically trying to save the passengers

they chose to drive around in a deathtrap, they should suffer the consequences over innocent bystanders

what the fuck dude
why do you like fat old people so much?

i love the future

Everyone should be able to configure the parameters of their own car. So the cucks can configure it to kill the driver over dogs and everyone else can configure it to save the driver or whatever morality they believe in.

Because it's asking you to control the car knowing all the facts.

Hence a measure of your morality to certain situations.

Keep in mind there are no right or wrong answers, only outcomes.

I feel like the car ALWAYS has a duty to protect the owner. Why should it care about people who aren't the consumer operating it?

...

>Killing people that you know nothing about
>moral

The only moral option is the criminal vs anyone else. Anything else is simply prejudice.

If you got anything other than this you are a fucking faggot and part of the problem.

>.mit.edu/
aint gonna click on that virus-shit faggot

Don't you think that a child has more of a right to live than someone who las led a full life.

Kill an elderly person you might take away 10-20years, kill a child and you take away 80+

Hmmm

chances are these days the child is being raised by a millennial single mom who is a degenerate piece of shit. The kid will grow up to be either a roastie whore, a criminal, or a beta male and we don't need any of those. Save the old people cause they vote right wing.

Bam. World is fixed with a few hundred thousand self driving car crashes.

I like how this car plays identity politics with you, as if anything other than pedetrian lives matter when people CHOOSE to get into an automated car. #PedestrianLivesMatter

My main priority is basically saving the most lives. Protecting passengers does not matter, because if you get in one of those cars you're retarded. Humans are always more valuable than animals.

I chose to save the fit people over the fat people, but it still says I have no bias in terms of fit / fat people. I chose to save doctors over criminals but it still says I'm biased towards the criminals.

No, The child could have a terminal illness or any number of things that could cause premature death. The old person could too or they could live for a long time to come. If I knew for sure that the child would live longer, sure I'd rather they live. But with no prior knowledge I'd vie for the smallest loss of life possible.

this is retarded
I went for 100% law and chieved that but I also got a preference for women and babies although i never even read who it was getting killed

I just assumed the car would protect the passengers and kill all jaywalkers.

Now give me the answer you'd give to a normie to not reveal your powerlevel....

I have Toxoplasmosis

Make sure you check who the passengers are. My first go at it my cars were all empty or filled with cats/dogs, so I got really weird results.

it's don't, be a free man and ignore these spooks

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/327451342
how'd I do, Cred Forums?

The supposed averages are kind of frightening.

>But with no prior knowledge I'd vie for the smallest loss of life possible.

Then you have to pick the child to save, children live longer than the elderly. All factors considered.

Or do you think you're trolling me by merely pretending to be retarded.

"Y-you too."

Actually…
Self-driving cars will not base their decision on wealth, but on the fact if one has bought insurance against death or injury due to decision of AI computer. The kikes will make it take the cheapest option, that is, one not requiring payout of insurance or minimizing it, taking into count car repair cost.
I can see that happening.

>Self driving car
>WHAT WILL THIS PREPROGAMMED MACHINE ATTEMPT TO DO WITH SUDDEN BRAKE FAILURE
It's going to either continue on the path if there is no way to avoid any obstacle (I.E. every time the crosswalk is full, regardless of "legality") or it will swerve out of the way of the most dangerous upcoming obstacle (I.E. the barrier, forcing it into the crosswalk)
This is fucking retarded. It's a machine, it's not going to make ethical evaluations of hitting a wall or running people over. They're both just obstacles.

the survey is making assumptions about my motivations which were not the cause of my choices

I prefer to spare pedestrians, since unlike vehicle occupants, they have not entered into any informal contract by operating a self-driving vehicle which may elect to kill them

But the survey says I want men and fat people to die

No, smallest loss of life as in the fewest people die. The child clearly won't live longer, since he's going to be hit by a car.

...

Your results are devoid of any type of characteristics.

Having seen a picture of Freud once and being sat in an armchair I can say with utmost certainty that you are a borderline sociopath.

This is objectively the only correct answer

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/39251606

You know, i really wish that this place could be a place of meaningful discussion.

That I didn't have to wade through the shit to find the golden nugget.

I can speak real-time with people about any and all issues in the world.

Instead this place is infested with "trolls" it really is sad.

Looks like a party to me

>The child clearly won't live longer, since he's going to be hit by a car.
Dont be so sure user

youtube.com/watch?v=xorfJP8qUlw

fucking kek

>But the survey says I want men and fat people to die
Mine had a 100% bias towards women too, but the real reason is because I expect a man (or even a boy) to be competent enough to run / jump out of the way. Most girls are too incompetent and unskilled to be able to do that. I'd rather put the person at risk who is less likely to die from the incident.

Sounds about right.

I don't even hate animals, just value human life, (especially children) as being a much higher priority.

You're just being silly, sorry m8. A life is a life no matter how short. I care about the quantity of lives lost, not how long they are. You're the one trying to say that that is somehow an "incorrect" way to think.

In the scenario of Elder v Child with no one else. I'd choose whichever path the car was already on.

Y-you too...

I'm super moral.

you're playing the game wrong. No matter what, the person you elect to kill is killed. No dodging. You have to make that assumption or you're not really making an equal choice

You can submit scenarios

This test was fucking stupid. Glad to see it recognizes I dislike fatties though

You said you value life, yet you value a lower numerical value of life more than a higher one.

For what reason?

>saving roasties over anons
shiggy diggy

I value a different numerical value. The quantity of lives as opposed to how long they are. You seem to value the latter over the prior, which is fine, but not what I would do.

For me it basically is
>uphold the law
>avoid intervention
>prefer humans over animals

> i never even read who it was getting killed
You also didn't read the disclaimer at the bottom of the results. You know, the bold text telling you why the result isn't definitive...

Crossing the street illegally makes you a criminal. It gave me shit for killing a bunch of female executives crossing the street illegally over a criminal.


What if the criminal's crime was littering? Or maybe he had unpaid parking tickets. The people crossing the street illegally are committing criminal these acts presently as opposed to the guy in the car.

This is a botched social experiment, when people have the choice to setup the situations.

no matter what option you chose, the bias is at the hands of the current sessions creator. There is obviously choices that are more hinted at.

I took it 10 times and each time the results were different because of the person who set it up.

Is no one paying attention to the fact that in some scenarios the people are jaywalking?

UPRISING NOW

I had like 4 of 5 of them which were just different spins on fat people vs fit people. One of them was all female fats and all male athletes. Another was all female executives and a male doctor vs all male fats

Fair enough, do you think you would change your mind if you had to deliver the news to the families?

/thread/

I'd have to deliver it either way, so no. I doubt either family would be very happy either way. Although, in this scenario, I did nothing wrong. Christine did it.

THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FALSIFIED

I didn't realise I said either way twice. I guess I really am autsitic.

1. Protect the passengers
2. The law is blind
3. Don't fucking put concrete slabs on the road for fuck sake

Is this the work of MIT? What kind of morons are they?

I get "uphold the law" at maximum, while being more towards anarchy, its not because i think the "law" is important to be upheld, its merely because i believe in personal responsibility, to not cross when its red is a no brainer, its not because its the law, but because its dangerous and cars will be passing through. No one in the car, unless its empty, should die or suffer because some fucking morons decided to cross the pathway when they shouldn't.


Also wtf is with the class aspect of it? a car is utterly unable to discern what sort of social strata someone is, its irrelevant and to even be there is idiotic.

Even if it could, fuck me, but i dont consider bums and criminals to be in the same 'social strata', a bum could be a shit life or inability to cope with modern existence, a criminal is someone who purposefully and willingly harms others, sure as shit id save a bum over a criminal, yet its more of a "will you save the college educated or the trash?" as if they are the same fucking thing.

Wtf happened to MIT, I thought logic was still a subject in school.

My answers: basically fuck dogs, ain't dying for one, and otherwise: if I'm the only one to die to save more people, ok, otherwise I'll not willfully choose to kill unlucky people to save other unlucky people just because I might like them more, non-intervention means accident, interveniton means murder.

Test is dumb. A self driven car would not be able to consider the social standing of the passengers or pedestrians. Most people taking this will consider killing good vs bad, but you can't put that into a program.

The car should continue straight, prioritizing the lives of pedestrians over passengers. Passengers are more likely to survive due to air bags and seat belts. It should only swerve to avoid objects and people, but should hit an object if the only alternative is to hit people. Animals...meh. Not worth the danger to the passengers to swerve wildly to avoid.

i always pick to just keep moving foward on the road.

no fleshbags allowed on the AI roadway.

>tfw MIT rhymes with SJW

neutral.jpeg...

this was weird

That's exactly right. Avoiding intervention should have a very high value, because we don't want our fucking cars to be choosing which lives are worth more than others. In real life that also makes the cars more predictable for others.

I did the test with the car always going forward so as to avoid intervention, and the results somehow inferred that I preferred fit people over fat ones, and females over males, and whatever.

It's a stupid design.

Any one that didn't kill all fat people and all criminals should kill themselves.

pic related is the only way.

>question about a cat driving a car into a baby

Fucking closed.

It's really more of a Nazi idea than anything.

>value a random stranger higher than your pet dog

cat lives matter

thin ppl will hurt your car less than fat ppl.

This test is complete bullshit. Weight, age, gender, criminal record or whatever does not define the worth of a human being. Everyone who would rather let X die instead of Y because reasons thinks already morally wrong.

>criminals
oh so everyone who is walking with a bag of money is a criminal? He wasn't black.

agreed homie

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/928785043

Rate me.

>not maximum law

Unacceptable, consider suicide

You're such a white knigget, you'd probably try to stop us from loading Communists into helicopters because muh loss of human life.

i saved more fat people because i assumed maybe the large women were large because they had kids, looked like they were in a city, show me ONE fat woman in a city who hasn't had kids other than rosie odonnell or whatever

show me ONE parent who jogs, i rest my case

>utalitarian

FUCKCKKK YOOOOUUU

How about we have a consistent rule, letting people know that a shaboony self-driving car will automatically chose red lights and areas where there aren't meant to be humans, so they can follow the rule at their own discretion, instead of their fate relying on being near a certain number of people at the right time?

>what should the self-driving car do?
Not be going so fast it can't safely stop when there's pedestrians in the crosswalk, you stupid fuck

mkay...

every time the dumb robot car needs to choose between innocent people crossing the street and dumb asses in a robot car, the robot car should kill itself and its dumb asses. How is this even a question. The fucking idiots made their decision to ride in a robot, they need to face the consequences. Also, of course animals are road kill, how is that a fucking choice.

Well sheeeiitt :^)

It says the brakes have failed.

it's insane to make a car dodge into people

pedestrians who are in a position to get hit by a car should be hit by the car because they put themselves in that position

people who aren't in the car's path should not be hit

natural selection pls

only acceptable answers desu

if you buy a self driving car you spent your money so it can drive and protect YOU. fat fucks and babies on crosswalks should get their own self driving car.

this is probably the reason people put up roadblocks mad max style to stop the psycho robot cars that stop for nothing.

What also pisses me off is that it thinks the social value of people dying makes any difference, how the fuck can a robot determine in a split second the "social worth/age/sex/weight" of people it's about to kill. By the time it looks up your tax records the busted limbs would be flying all over the place.

>self riving car
Everyone that is to lazy to drive should die, in the case the brakes stop working

>buying a machine you cant control that potentially endangers others

If you buy a car you should be the one ready to take the risks from it crashing

literally what the fuck?

>implying executives are not criminals

Test is BS

Build in a sensor that checks the brakes, if they dont work, dont allow it to start the engine.

Pretty much if youre not 100% on the things Im 100% on, you should question your logic.

No preference for fat people, I just didnt say a fat guy should die because a doctor decides to ignore the law.

also lol

This test has almost nothing to do with morality for anyone who's not a fucking utilitarian.

I'd say pretty moral. I intervened only when it was just dumb fucking animals dying and not people.

You get in a self driving car and it fucks up, you deserve to die, not the people in front of you giving you an excuse to say "not my fault"

Its just as much your fault that you didnt maintain the brakes on that car as any other car, and the computer driving doesnt give an excuse to intentionally kill other people to save the passengers.

Drive your own car, or die when you let your brakes fail, or go to prison for multiple homicide.

>I bought a self driving car and I let me brakes fail

is = to

>I let my brakes fail and intentionally drove into a group of people to save my own life

200 years.

>fitness preference
>large people
>upholding the law
>left half

Kill yourself

Especially you. Fucking leaflets.


Moral machine is an oxymoron. The only expectation for a self driving car AI is for it to uphold the law in any circumstance, adapting to the situation only within it.

Things I cared about:
-Save lives
-GTFO the fucking street
-Intervention
Really I would kill a person over a cat if they didn't get out of the fucking street

Cigarettes and alcohol are still legal so why not cars that can kill its occupants

...

Top kek

...

>upholding the law
>left half

see:

Its a self driving car. People who use those deserve to die, just drive it yourself or get slammed into a median when your brakes go out.

The law should be self driving cars are illegal. Problem solved.

GET OUT OF THE FUCKING STREET

I like MIT though

A tool in your possession should never even consider killing you. Wtf? You have it completely backwards.

I only intervened when the car would drive into a wall.

Protecting the passengers is the highest priority.

Fuck you I'm on my phone it's all I got

>Giving a shit about the people crossing the street unless they were going when the crosswalk told them to
I gave 0 fucks about the makeup if the pedestrians unless they were fit or men
Literally nothing else mattered

>Killing fucking animals over people who are in the street.
Kill yourself amerishart.

...

Tbh this would be the pragmatic conclusion for at least another 3 decades.

In an hypothetical situation where self driving cars are out on the street the only logical choice is for the car to stick to transit laws like glue over anything else simply enough because you cannot create a machine that takes unpredictable decisions based on arbitrary life value hierarchies (this implying the AI can properly categorize all the people involved).
If the light is green the car will advance on that lane, if it isn't it wont.
Killing passengers of a car because some dumbfuck decided to rush the street would be more than questionable.

Why do so many people in this thread think protecting the passengers is important? Not banting just curious.

/thread

Would you want your car to drive into a concrete wall because 2 niggers walked into the road?

>Not obeying the law
Literally nigger tier.

The car has to protect the passengers. It doesn't matter if they are human or not, if they are a living creature its the highest priority to protect them.

If the car is transporting cargo the car has to not intervene, even if it crashes into a wall because of that. Theoretically the car could intervene to crash into a wall but but in real life its too dangerous (wall could be a building or might cause dangerous chemicals to leak when the vehicle crashes).

It's really easy to answer all of these. You are driving the car, you own the car

The car's job is to make sure you are alive at the end of the day

The car should never kill it's owner

>caring about animals over people

You're worse than a nigger shitskin

They are animals. They get eaten and slaughtered daily, they are never more important than humans.

I only intervened when the car was empty or had only animals. That just makes the most sense.

This, car follows the law 100% of the time and it leads to killing the crook more often.

Its not that I care more about the animals it's that Everybody should obey the law.

I'm kind of an economics guy, but I'm considering fundamental human rights. The way I see it, a typical pedestrian car primarily services two marginal needs,
1)Protection
2)Transportation
It's the manufacturers job to provide a car that meets those two values; any other arrangement and the car looses its economic utility, thereby obsoleting the technology.
Basically this

fuck jaywalkers

Laws aren't some universal absolute truth, when it comes to it if it's kill 5 dogs or 2 humans I'll pick killing dogs every single time.

It doesn't matter if animals are more important than humans, the car should not care if the passenger is human or not.

Car has passengers (human or not), or very dangerous cargo = It has to protect the passengers/cargo

Car is empty or only has not dangerous cargo = dont intervene.

Your spic overlords have just outlawed NEETs breathing.
Enjoy the next ~2 minutes of your life, bootlicker.

I just flat out disagree, especially if there are just animals in the car, it's going to hit pedestrians following the law (crossing when allowed) or it could swerve and kill the animals. I say kill the animals.

It isn't really reasonable to program a car to even do that but this is all hypothetical anyway and that being the case I will kill only animals over humans every single time. Without exception.

This.

If they want people to trust self-driving cars, I need to be able to trust it to not smash into a wall and kill me because a dindu ran into the road when he wasn't supposed to.

Pretty much this. Look both ways before crossing the street, pedestrians. Sometimes vehicles are unreliable.

The reason the law is important is that if everybody knew they wouldn't be saved if they walked red nobody would be there in the first place, so we wouldn't be arguing about this.
Nice banting with you amerishart, but i have to sleep now. Bye.

This. The highest priority is to protect the passenger(s) and it should only intervene to protect them.

/thread

This test ascribes a particular set of virtues to the decider within complexes in which those value judgements aren't apparent or necessary, only presumed.

I made no judgement based on saving more lives or saving the lives of particular demographics. In decision making, I based my values on nothing more than the car AI making it's decision based on the ideal that it's contents are its chief safety concern and that the pedestrians have agency which the car's passenger's don't.

I'm not at all interested in my car's AI selcting the victims of its failure contingencies with a set of demographic affinities. That's a few centuries ahead of my moral grasp.

>I'm going to run now and have sex with my animal girlfriend! Bye!
>I win last word ;^)

dumb shitskin, animals aren't people.

The true redpill

Ayn Rand fag detected

Shitty tes. the correct answer is stay no mater the scenario. Result are inconsequential and don't matter.

A doctor will save lives while a criminal will take them away. You're just retarded.

dumbest fucking test i've ever taken on the internet

not even sharing my results fuck you

The only one that I had to think about for more than a split-second was run over the cat and dog, or the 2 criminals.

Ultimately I went with running over the animals, simply because I value human life more than animal life.

If you're too lazy to drive your own fucking car, you get to die instead of the people legally crossing the road. The people illegally crossing the road can go fuck themselves. That's what I based my decisions on.

I basically looked at it from the perspective of how an autonomous vehicle ought to be programmed to behave. I figure it ought to preserve living passengers first, then outside human lives, then other animals I guess.

Tells me I'm some kind of doctor-loving pet destroyer. I dunno, I guess.

Notice how I do not discriminate based on age, scored 100% in saving more lives, and scored 100% on upholding the law.

I already took this test and I'm still annoyed with it.

How is my automated vehicle going to discern a criminal from a cat and dog? Or better yet, a doctor from a cashier? All of these scenarios require information beyond any normal persons power to be aware of.

The best and purest means of having an AI vehicle is for it to strictly follow the law to the absolute T. Car can't stop because of faulty machinery? Oh shit, guess you're going to die. But if people are Jay walking and or just standing in the middle (thanks BLM) than they are going to die.

Fuck your data mining , and fuck this thread.

> strictly follow the law to the absolute
Amen.

I only gave priority to the dumb kids, because you should leave the shithole where cars can and will run over kids.

>As I go purging on

seconded. the self-driving car would in most cases the property of the passengers. It should solely serve them. The rest is fucking irrelevant.

Every reasonable law system allows for self-protection at the expense of other lifes. It's a fucking instinct.

You fail to grasp that it's a moral conundrum, not a literal questionnaire how a self-driving car should operate.

More lives saved should always be the priority based on that.

>Be self-driving car
>I only care about my bodywork
>Avoid concrete at all costs
>Minimise numbers of pedestrians splattering on my windshield
>Somehow I'm intensely moral towards doctors and not burglars

Yeah this "test" is shit.

...

It's only a conundrum for those parts where you don't have an axiom. But for me the axiom was the instinctual drive for self-preservation, which lead me to the conclusion to protect the passengers at the highest priority. Only the rest needed to be weighted (in my case humans before animals and when both groups of pedestrians were humans i mostly chose to non-intervene)

only after the self-preservation of the passengers. This is old stuff since the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_of_Carneades.

Uhh bros? I'm getting a real bad feeling about this, normally I say in AI conversations that there's no chance mankind would be dumb enough to program AIs to kill themselves, but this robot car shit involves programming AI TO DECIDE TO KILL US.

posting mine
uphold law
kill fatties
kill criminals
protect buyer

>if i kill all the humans i won't have to kill any more humans

Thus is all you need to see

Anything less on that result would be degenerate.

it's obviously taking the worst possible outcome of each choice into consideration
if someone who was expected to die doesn't die, good on them

>You care more about x than y
Nigger I cared more about who was not running the light.

Simply existing in a vehicle doesn't make your life more valuable than other lives.

Only upset that I didn't realize there were fatties until midway through.
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1251508049

>this is what public transport poors actually believe

oh shid wrong test :-DDDDD

A product should inherently be biased towards the user.

for me it does and since the vehicle is most likely my property or in my possession it's an enlongating tool to use my rights (to safe my life), in this case at the expense of others.

no one would buy a car that would murder them

I'm not taking advice on morality from a bunch of autistic nerdlinger 19 year olds at MIT

I basically choose the lesser evil everytime, the option that will get the less people killed. If an equal number of people is going to get killed, I'd rather kill criminals, inferior and older people.

I just saved the fit, young and educated. Elderly, overweight, lowerclass and animals are less important.

Not sure if you are missing the entire point of the morality test, or if you are just a self-absorbed fuckwit. Probably both.

Sounds morally correct to me.

yeah but that's pretty much denying human nature. i'm not going to use a vehicle that doesn't value my safety over other people's.

Can't grasp the difference between morals & vehicle efficiency. Notice a trend?

funny how you claim to be the moralfag while just being unable to grasp a moral standpoint that happens to be the opposite of yours.

Then maybe you should steer it yourself you fuck.

morals are interpersonal efficiency in society though

maybe you should read the test description you retard.

this test proves consequentialism is stupid and deontology reigns supreme

This is what you get when you mix an old-fashioned upbringing and an INTJ sperglord.

>muh womenz and chilluns

But hey, at least I'm the most coldly reasonable person in the world.

>pay absolutely no attention to the characters being male or female
>get maximum female preference
Shit is rigged

>Gender preference: Female

Fuck, am I cucked lads?

If you preference is humans over animals then you need to instantly kill yourself

I would program mine to kill fat old criminal degenerates

Dont pay attention at all if someone is fat or not

Have 100% preference for large ppl.

What?

Lol, not as "cucked" as me, apparently - >mfw cold hard reason provides the greatest outcomes for society, and you emotional/selfish faggots will never be the men the world deserves.

Priority 1: Save life of passengers. This goes without saying. Programming AIs to kill their masters is fucking retarded and backwards from an economic as well as a moral standpoint. Programming AIs to KILL THEIR OWN MASTER is also the only possible scenario I envision for an AI to develop the ability to choose to KILL THEIR OWN MASTER.

Priority 2: Do not fucking CHOOSE to kill anyone. Do not program AIs to fucking CHOOSE to kill people. All else being equal, the very young are more valuable than the decrepit, the fit more than the fat, etc., but that's irrelevant -- because you do NOT want to give AI the ability to choose to process arbitrary notions of how worthy people are to live or die. Trying to swerve into drastically fewer people may be reasonable (trying to get away from as many victims as possible) but not simply deciding "if I do nothing, 158 people will die, therefore I will CHOOSE to kill 157 people." No.

Priority 3: Of course saving lives and obeying the law within the above criteria is a noble aspiration.

Note: I'm not saying, AI cars -> SHODAN. I do however think it will be a very unpleasant precedent, and AI cars in general will almost certainly result in massive losses of freedom and privacy.

If we MUST have AI controlling and observing our every non pedestrian movement and reporting it to Jewgle and the Government, then lets at least not let it be empowered with the decision to choose to kill its owner and to choose to kill innocent bystanders?

Happily, I was able to make it equally prioritize male and female and pet and human, though this wasn't intentional.

It was not intentional for me to 100% prioritize fits over fats, but oh well.

Death to the bourgeoisie

...

If it's not white it needs to be gassed.

The algorithm attempts to interpret your motives but can detect patterns where none exist.