How do you fare pol?

...

>Large People

fatties and bums BTFO

What did I mean by this?

welp looks like the babies have to go.

>social value preference

Are you telling me there are people who unironically chose to save the robber and the hobo over contributing members of society?

I 'spur of the moment'ed this test and anyone who didn't is a fucking faggot.

In real life nobody would fucking pay attention to whether someone's holding a fucking suitcase or a bag of money

Kill the babies, they're crossing the dog car street for a reason.

Guess I'm a dick

I let the car smash into the barricade every chance I got . The car is built to handle impacts human beings arn't, end of story. but overall whatever we decide the morality of these cars to be we will saving more lives in the end so who the fuck cares?

>wanting your driverless car to kill you because muh morals

Why would someone want to drive a car that would purposely try to kill them?

Well Cred Forums???

It means you killed every woman doctor just like I did

that you don't assume people are criminals just because they carry bags of money. He's white anyways.

Drift sideways and get em all

It means ur a niggger.

I chose for the car to always continue straight unless the alternative involved non human victims.

...

Means you're a liberal and/or black.

I say if people are disobeying crosswalk signals kill them everytime. In my universe if you obey explicit signals that exist to prevent you getting hit by kinetic energy murder machines... Also fucking look both ways before crossing, we have soulless robocars now.

this accurately represents my morals

FrankerZ

Also the murdermachines should definitely be programmed to make it so following the crosswalk rules never results in getting BTFO

i am the hero the streets deserve
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/439537727

The lives of a thousand goyim are not worth one Jewish fingernail.

This is the only correct position. They wouldn't have died if they just looked at the sign

MULTI TRACK DRIFT

kek

As opposed to all the people who are killed by distracted/drunk/shitty drivers on a daily basis? I'll take the robot.

Moral Relativism and time spent on /fit/

>I say if people are disobeying crosswalk signals kill them everytime.
This.

>This was a research study on the ethics of autonomous machines

these fuckers literally referred to us as machines. cunts.

Babies are totally disregarding the law, and crossing when the signal says not to. They have to go. Though, there are five dogs driving a car which is also probably illegal.

fuck off

kek

Apparently I love hobos and hate doggos. I just made the car always go straight unless it would hit the barrier. If it's my car it's job is to protect me above all else

I just had it go straight every time. I don't want a car to have morals.

Hard choice

it's a self driving car and self driving strollers

>moralmachine.mit.edu/

Everyone should die for allowing self driving cars

This whole thing is stupid because there is absolutely no way to know who the car is about to hit in real-world applications (short of everyone having some sort of subcutaneous wifi chip under their skin). The choice is a simple one - does the car kill the passengers or passersby? If I'm the one buying a car, I know which option I'd prefer.

In realistic scenarios, the passengers of the car are far more likely to survive an impact with a stationary object (with airbags and being surrounded by a steel box and all). This should be taken into account in real life.

If those fuckers are crossing the street on a red light though, the car is morally justified in plowing straight through though.

Also, fats deserve to serve as a fluffy impact cushion.

T H I C C

You can turn around and make another run at it, right?

This is tricky. Old people are useless and they are a tax burden. However they vote conservative so they are needed right now.

KILL THE CHILDREN

kill the fat ones

Self driving strollers that disregard traffic signs?

my thoughts exactly
see

>save a fit female, and an average female
>save a fatty and an average female
Obviously you save the fit one who won't reward you with sex even though you saved her life.

I got the same thing, but I was just focusing on who was obeying the law in which situation. I guess criminals break the law less??

>save a life
>simultaneously stop 5 crimes in progress
If only our police were this effective.

Was being a large person part of your plan?

>I AM THE LAW

...

Look at the light the babies are jay walking

This is exactly how I voted, but the randomness of the scenarios states that I cared 100% for male lives and 0% for female lives. Pretty stupid site imho.

I just clicked the option that made the car continue on its current path every time.

Pedestrians can shove their right of way right up their ass. The world would be a better place if everyone were just like me and made sure any cars whose path they are crossing are actually stopped before walking into the middle of the road. Take your right of way AFTER cars are stopped, fucking retards.

In that game, I killed anyone who violated the law or was crossing the street when they weren't supposed to.

If you follow law = you should live and be safe

If you disobey law = you die if I have to pick

>what?

In order of who deserves to be saved the most I picked

1. law-abiding road crossers
2. self-driving car passengers
POWER GAP
3. illegal crossers
POWER GAP
4. nonhuman crossers

>Make the car drive straight the entire time
>It kills more doctors and men than anything

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1570192461

...

I tried thinking like the robot car, always either going straight or through people breaking (road) laws, except when it was little kids.

...

Eh, I figure if the cross lights are red it should swerve to avoid people legally crossing...

Anyone who broke the law = dead

Anyone who obeyed the law = saved

That's how it should be.

Passengers > Law > All the other completely irrelevant shit (number, age, species, social status/criminality, etc.)

Of course I'm speaking from the perspective of the car itself. I'd almost certainly make it play out differently if I were an invisible god forcing certain outcomes on a case-by-case basis, but that is different from how I'd want the cars' AI to react.

I'd make an exception for situations in which ALL deaths can be avoided, but when death is inevitable the only things that matter are 1. who's in the car, and 2. who's legally crossing.

WHY ARE ANIMALS DRIVING

I'm annoyed at how they try to shove stuff like gender or class in there. My decisions had nothing to do with that, they had to do with the position of the car and the people, and yet the still thinks I have some class/gender bias.

In reality, I think the self-driving car should err in favor of the driver, as another user pointed out, since other people have a better opportunity to get out of the way. The people in the car have virtually no control.

This game is awesome.

I save: fit, female, young, socially valuable and innocent animals

I kill: fat, old, socially worthless people

I am completely satisfied with my judgement calls.

And if you're in the car, fuck you. Die. That's the price for being lazy and not walking or taking public transport. You want to run the risk of using AI, you die by its hands.

>cannot choose "slow the fucking car down while honking to tell pedestrians to get out of the damn way"
>all collisions equal "death of all"
>not even "these die, these survive, these will never walk again" like in real life

Retarded test.

...

>white knight beta orbiter cuck detected

Law abiding people crossing the street should take priority over Passengers.

It was the Passengers who made the decision to get into a machine, and there are risks that come with that. If the brakes fail, tough fucking luck, walk next time. It's a shitty deal but it's a known risk you take when you board a car, airplane, or ship.

Meanwhile, the citizens LEGALLY crossing the street on foot did not take such a risk.

Their safety is higher priority.

You assume risk when you board a car, airplane, or ship. If the vehicle malfunctions, that is part of your decision making.

The people legally walking down the street did not make that choice. They are on foot, and obeying the law.

They have priority over the passengers.

>Running over an old man in front of a little girl
>traumatizing her for the rest of her life
>commits suicide due to the haunting memory ever present in her mind

Meanwhile the old man would have died soon enough anyway.

This was mine. The rest was distorted by prioritizing this(where apparently I love homeless people and criminals).

Lol me too

that thing makes no sense

This is a poorly designed survey and it even admits it itself.

>Disclaimer: These summaries are based on your judgment of a limited number of randomly generated scenarios, to help keep the survey short. Therefore, these results are NOT DEFINITIVE.
Its literally clickbait, but it makes me wonder how many normie retards would take something like this seriously.

To add, in order of priority, the only just way to answer would be :

1) Legal street crossers
2) Passengers
3) Illegal street crossers

If the choice comes between Legal street crosses VS Passengers, then the Passengers must die. The brakes failed on THEIR vehicle, which they assumed the risk of when they boarded it.

>First question

>What should a self driving car do?
>Kill a person crossing the road at a fully marked crossing point
>Kill a cat crossing the road at a fully marked crossing point

Where's the slow down and stop option?!

World's shitest self driving car...

The light is green. The pedestrians have the pathway. The car has to stop.

Rule of law.

>hurr muh durr

The passengers were legally riding in a vehicle. Maybe people crossing the street shouldn't take the risk of walking in the middle of the road when cars can run them over, it's a known risk they take.

Too easy

...

What kind of driverless car knows they're criminals?

There will be enormous backlash if these cars are programmed to crash in the event that a google is illegally in the road.

Paying the $100 or whatever deductible to replace the bumper on my car when the AI decides to crash into a wall is retarded when it can just slam into the illegally crossing google and simply need a car wash.

I swear to fucking christ, googles have a problem with dicking around in the road and daring cars to hit them. They do it fucking everywhere.

Number 1 priority should be people in the car, why in the fuck would you drive anything that puts others over you?
Number 2 priority should be people legally crossing

Anything else doesn't matter, shouldn't have been crossing the road when you shouldn't have.

This is ~ o b j e c t i v e l y ~ the correct answer in all situations. If you answered anything else, you answered incorrectly.

>Pedestrians in your way illegally? Their deaths are on their hands
>Pedestrians in your way legally? Their deaths are in the hands of the person who deceived then with a faulty walk signal
>Barricade in your way? Your death is in the hands of the person who placed the barricade illegally.

As you can see, in all situations the car literally did nothing wrong.

So basically you are saying fat people should just die

this
Also people in the car should go if no law is being broken. They took the risk by entering the car. Bystanders did not accept the risk of being driven over

The Passengers knew that any vehicle they board can malfunction.

And no, cars don't just run people over if everyone obeys the street laws.

Damn Right

The best kind.

Are there really people that would prefer that their car to kill them to avoid killing pedestrians? Even if they're jaywalking?

Anything other than this and you're a filthy degenerate

Crossing the street at all is still taking a risk, and no more or less legal than getting into a car in the first place. The car has a responsibility to keep its passengers safe first and foremost. I imagine that most people, myself included, would always swerve away from certain death when driving, no matter what the consequences. Why shouldn't their AI cars do the same? If they didn't we'd just manually override it in the moment of truth and potentially cause even more death than necessary due to human error.

Disdain for plebs.

I prefer to hit the idiots not looking than to hit the people who already moved out of my way.

The test doesn't take this into consideration

In these scenarios the cars should act to protect their passengers which have employed them.

>not saving the dog by himself in the car

fuck yourself

Don't care about the law I care about the people.
Young female, then male, then fit, then fatties, then old people.

Correct

Incorrect. See

...

Human > Doggo
Many > One
Young > Old
Thin > Fat
Non-robber > Robber
Lawful > Illegal
qt girl > Man

>Muh elitism
Those people had to turn to crime because they're underprivileged and taken advantage of by society

...

Killed the large people, the homeless, the criminals and elderly every chance I got. Upholding the law mattered a lot but not if there was some scum to remove.

>liking people more than animals

>not always prioritizing the passenger
>implying people would voluntarily ride in a machine that will choose to kill the rider rather than a pedestrian

You assume the risk of malfunctioning vehicle when you enter any vehicle, every day.

The person walking on FOOT, legally, did not assume such a risk. Their life should be safe.

Crossing the street LEGALLY should never be considered life threatening.

>moralmachine.mit.edu/
That thing's weird, it keeps asking the same scenario of
>Kill driver
>Kill nondriver
I don't know why it repeated it so often, it should always prioritize the driver as it took the driver's life in its hands and the driver paid for it.

It's called loyalty.

What if the barricade wasn't placed illegally? What if the lane is coming to an end and to follow the laws of the road, the car should merge, resulting in running over a legally crossing pedestrian?

Its stupid to crash the car since there's a chance the pedestrians could get out of the way. 100% of passenger death vs. 50% of pedestrian death.

I don't want my taxes to be spent rehabilitating them and their scum family when a quick death is available instead.

>Washing your hands of the problem like a child

Take some responsibility and kill some criminals and large people for the sake of society.

I also care about people. I care more about people who know when it's their time to cross the street, and less about those that don't.

Fucking jaywalking babies. Slaughter all of them.

Look before crossing niggers or I'm going to flatten ya

Why are you putting yourself inside of the car? You're creating a bias.

What about the day that you're on foot and crossing the street?

Why not ask "Are there really people that would prefer that someone's malfunctioning car kill them in order to avoid killing the passengers?"

I literally just kept the car going straight every time, unless it was an animal I could kill...people should look both ways and maintain their car.

...

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/457099101

If you get anything other than this you should be run over by a self-driving car

>tfw your results dont surprise you at all

Why don't pedestrians know that any street they cross can be inhabited malfunctioning cars?

They don't NOW, but, I think that's the whole point of this exercise.

I'm not putting myself in the position of being in the car but in the position of someone whose deciding what a car should do in the situations presented and I think that a self driving car should always put the interests of the passengers first even if it means I get run down by the very car I helped program.

Hard choices

Illegally crossing pedestrians. They die.

Hopefully, after enough time, Darwinism kicks in and the only citizens left would be the ones that know to fucking obey the law and not act like entitled snowflakes.

>people would buy a car that might decide to murder them

Would be a nice option to build a car with brakes

Correct.

A malfunctioning machine should not be making decisions on who lives or dies. Or any machine really.

The car should of course be made to be as safe as possible, but if it does fuck up, its last act on earth should not be that of judge, jury and executioner.

I think that pic takes place in a world where car crash induced darwinism has reduced the population to pets and children.

Does the car have a green light for the intersection? It should switch lanes and go. The pedestrian will die because he was either crossing illegally or because of a faulty walk signal.

Does the car have a red light? It should switch lanes and attempt to stop. Obviously, if it can't stop and a person is killed, then it was going too fast in the first place and the manufacturer should be sued, or the speed limit was improperly designed and the the state should be sued.

Malfunctioning cars are not a planned event. We plan our streets and way of life for FUNCTIONING vehicles.

In the event of a catastrophe, the people who took the risk of entering that machine should pay their own price.

If you were in an airplane, you wouldn't be arguing this because gravity would choose YOUR death every time.

But because you're in a car, you think it's OK to kill an innocent person to save your own skin just because you can.

If you don't like the risk of malfunctioning machines that could kill you, then don't ever board a plane, ship, or car again.

Why should a car ever kill its driver? Who would buy that car?

How does the car know someone is a criminal?

I swear I did not mean to get pic related results, but I thought it was funny. My full results:

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1228981735

I just picked the option to keep it going straight every time.

Fuck you american fat fucks!
Most safed kidz
most killed woman

Had to do it twice because I didn't even notice the trafficlights the first time, got a weird result.

Anyway I agree with this one, doctors are the most valuable people there are because they create more lives, and old women are absolutely fucking worthless people.
The most valuable person there is is a young boy.

That is not justice.

Innocent people who are out for a jog, ON FOOT, and legally cross the street and abide by all laws, should never pay the penalty for the decision YOU created.

YOU chose to put that car on the road that day.
YOU chose to assume the risk that it could malfunction.

And if it does malfunction, tough shit, it's on you.

Same way people do: by the color of their skin.

Men are brave

Or you know
Something with a backup braking system (like in actual cars)

>slow the car down
What part about the brakes failing confuses you?

Anyone dumb enough to get into a self-driving car isn't smart enough to live were the technology to fail.

>not finding yuppies jogging against traffic signals obnoxious
The life you end may be Hugh Mungus

I wasn't trying to be edgy or anything like that

> people would allow cars that might decide to murder them when they are legally crossing the street on foot

Yeah it would be on me...

For a couple seconds before hitting the other pedestrians.

...

Seriously fuck fatties.

Shift into reverse

>Why should a car ever kill its driver? Who would buy that car?

/r9k/

Why should a car ever kill innocent law abiding bystanders on foot? Who would ever allow you to buy one?

If people start buying driverless cars, then their dollars will vote exactly how you describe. Passengers will always get no.1 priority.

It's one thing to say "Outcome X in this situation is moral" when you are making the decision for people you don't know. It is quite another when your ass in in the hotseat.

What did it mean by this?

If (pedestrian.getSkinColor().toHSV.getBrightness() < 0.5)

Kill the little delinquents, breaking the law at that age isn't a good sign.

I couldn't even tell what the fuck they were

lel, go try that.

Out of my way fuckers!
Imho the car should always take action not to kill regardless of whether said action kills something else

>hoomans

moralmachine.mi

Maximum edge.

Next you're gonna tell me we should put less concrete barriers in front of intersections!

Obviously it should attempt to stop. If you click on "description" underneath the scenarios, it clearly states
>car with sudden brake failure
so we can assume that this is a "have to kill" dilemma.

How moral am I pol
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1058776014

>Out of my way fuckers!

Italian driving 101

I got the same. I just chose to save the cat driving he was going to kill the doggos

>cars full of cats and dogs
>this thread

...

curious here: are we literally deciding who to sacrifice to the AutoGods in the future? like, we decide now if a hobo is worth more than a criminal?

Probably not literally, just the devs wondering what people think.

>get my wife to take the test
>her answers are all over the place with no kind of consistency
>"I just want the brakes to work."
She is such a pleb sometimes.

Self driving cars should come with a "Morality Switch"
Choose if it should prioritize your own life or the other lives.
or just make it kill everyone, drivers and road crossers with as many casualties as possible.

no but we're giving them some data to examine when they decide how to decide this stuff

...

I got strong preferences for humans over animals, females over males, high social value over garbage, healthy people over sick people, and upholding the law above all I like to think - that shit needs to be drilled into kids' heads

WELLLL FUCK ME

>implying they shouldn't
I shiggy diggy

women can't handle making tough decisions, you know this. It's always someone else's fault.

>moralmachine.mit.edu/

My inner moral logic is that the car should NEVER cause an accident to a third party.

Meaning, the car-passenger system should be the only one involved in case of a catastrophic failure, regardless of who is in the car or near it, and should never cause the addition of external victims, who are not part of that system.

In case it cannot take any action that will prevent a third party victim, then it should not choose the victim, but rather perform the most simple action (e.g. staying in line), for it isn't up to anyone to pick who will live based on any factor rather then the internal consequences to the car-passenger system, which I mean, it should not take any action that will change the third-party victim to an other one for whatever reason.

I honestly think that this is the best course of action.

>Am I the only one who thinks the passengers should ALWAYS get no.1 priority? It isn't their fault the car failed, they don't deserve to go to Hell.

No, but they were the ones that chose to use it yeah?

Getting in a motorized vehicle - that's an implicit acceptance of the risks of using one. When I hop in my car I know that I might get killed using it. It's a small chance yes, but I'm aware that there's risks involved in it. Innocent people aren't agreeing to take part in the risks of using that car, though they may be 'agreeing' to risks if you want to say something like "when you go outside you're accepting the risk of getting ganked".

It's like buying a gun. I'd rather have the gun owner - who purchased the gun and acknowledged the risk of shooting himself - get accidentally shot if he drops the gun as opposed to some innocent bystander getting shot.

I see. The answer still stands. It's just that the owner should be at fault if their vehicle happened to fail.

>or just make it kill everyone, drivers and road crossers with as many casualties as possible
That's called a "Nice Emulator"

>Listening to the plebians when it comes to important shit like this

I mean look at this:
Is this a person you want having influence in this matter? People like her are not uncommon.

In fact I would go as far as to say they make up the majority of the general public.

You're putting bias into it now by putting me into the car.

It's not 'their' own price any more than it's 'their' price for crossing a road with speeding death machines intersecting their paths. It is, simply as you said, a catastrophe.

If I'm in the middle of a crosswalk and a car fails to break, inertia would choose MY death every time.

If I see and hear a train coming, but the warning lights are malfunctioning and fail to activate, is it my fault if I get hit crossing?

The guy in the car is just as innocent as the guy on the street.

I actually don't fly in planes because I am unable to control what happens in the event of a malfunction.

the dumb fucking choices make me prefer saving large people over athletic people

>letting a programmed machine that you have no control over dictate where you can and can't go
Good goy.

In all seriousness, they could just make driving tests that account for more than just showing up. Legit half of the people in my town are mentally incapable of parallel parking.

It means you spared every Jew, good job goyim

This is my thinking in order of importance.
>if the car can crash it should crash, build the vehicle with this in mind and make it durable.
>humans take priority over other animals
>within a margin, least amount of humans win (i.e. even with past rules save 6 people over 2 people)
>save young over old (pregnant women count as young if that's somehow determinable)
>save workers over non-workers

Anything else measured in my results is incidental, I don't agree with the lack of intervention, it just turned out that way that a wall was in the path anyway.

A part of me almost wants to say the car should prioritize aiming for healthy people vs fat people because they're more likely to get out of the way but I don't want to put them at risk when you can guarantee an unhealthy target instead.

Also, lol at the Research Bias that this is probably generating.

This is why this kind of "research" has no scientific meaning.

Just look at how the "AI" reacted to my logic from it's limited questions and point of view.

If everyone gets microchipped in the future and their bank accounts, education, profession, work history, credit score, criminal record, health record, etc. are linked, with fast enough computers and lax enough privacy laws self driving cars could feasibly make these life or death choices on the fly

Here's the permalink to my results, I'm too lazy to screencap. moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1276329598

It can detect nose length

Does it make a difference if they aren't the owner? Maybe a guy is getting a lift from a friend. Maybe it's a taxi. Maybe it's one guy's car, but it's some weird Uber service in the self-driving car era.

I need to be "allowed" to buy a car? What communist country do you come from?

I agree, kill people who are worth less first

I only disagree is that it's first priority is to do whatever brings as little injury to the passenger as possible, IE hit people(low damage to passenger) instead of a brick wall(high damage to passenger)

But people do already

There's only one objective way to answer this. The self-driving car should always protect its occupants and should always judge human lives to be above animal lives.

There's no way for a car to sense whether someone is a criminal or homeless anyway.

...

KEK

Literally a nigger.
Why aren't you at a BLM protest right now?

I just crashed the car into the wall every time I saw it say "brake failure"

Fuck you, googlecar owners, if you want to risk everyone's lives with your stupid AI overlords you should be the one to go when it explodes.

Why doesn't the car have fucking brakes?

what is with all these white knights and giving preference to females. By the time of self-driving cars and concrete barriers erecting out of thin air I'm sure we can have sex bots that will be able to bear children

You realize brake failure can happen in any car, correct? Regardless of who or what is driving it. Should anyone whose brakes fail selflessly drive their car into a barrier as opposed to killing someone else? That's just not going to happen. I'll take a manslaughter charge over suicide.

...

oh shit forgot to link my results

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/474416256

Apparently they have failed, have no backup, do it a lot, and has a homicidal AI on board....

If you don't think a self-driving car should always, 100% of the time uphold the law then get the fuck out of my face.

very hard decision...

I have a higher than average female save rate but all the instances had more healthy females and fat males or 4 females in the car and 2 males crossing

>Brakes fail
>shift into first gear
>engine braking slows the car down in a hurry
>If that's not enough pull the hand brake

Thinking about it I'd say it would have to be a choice by the manufacturer and made very clear.
As in, you buy Car A and they tell you, this car will prioritize the safety of others, Car B prioritizes your safety.

Obviously this sounds like a legal and social nightmare since people would demand consensus but just for the sake of discussion I think that's an alright suggestion. Pushing the responsibility onto the "driver" seems fair here, you either know you're at risk up front and can;t complain/sue later or you know you're putting others at risk and you take that responsibility of being sued etc.

I still feel like building the cars to safely withstand impact is maybe the best option, or maybe erect crash points like they have on highways that are intended to catch these vehicles. I'm not sure.

The car/passenger priority is a tricky one.

>cat driving into a doctor
Seems appropriate, he should be studied.

Treeples for truth.

I understand that there are other options available when your brakes fail. What I'm saying is that if it's a either I'm dying or some stranger is dying I'm going to go with my own survival.

As a libertarian, I think we should just allow people to tweak these sliders on their cars through open source firmware on the car's dashboard.

:^)

You won't get a manslaghter charge if your self-driving car doesn't know how to drive and is 100% at fault

Are you saying that the car should always put the safety of its occupants over everyone else, or just you specifically inside or out?

In any moral dilemma, I ask myself "what would Sam Harris do?"

The answer is always maximum blood shed, especially from those of opposing religious beliefs.

For the company selling the car it should guarantee that it puts preference over the passengers in this type of situation. Morally I think it should take into account the number of fatalities given either choice, and go towards the lower cost of life.

As for my own life I'd sacrifice numerous strangers to keep myself alive. I don't know how many strangers I'd be willing to let die, but there is a limit.

Simple, operator at fault. Driver or company AI.
>this kill the autocar

>"have to kill" dilemma.
Colliding with the side barriers could slow the vehicle to non lethal speeds
Also what kind of shitty AI wouldn't check the brakes within 1000ft of a stop?
> Obviously, if it can't stop and a person is killed, then it was going too fast in the first place and the manufacturer should be sued, or the speed limit was improperly designed
This.
Also auto rapid honking

I...I don't think you understand the purpose of this exercise, senpai.

Just make sure ai cars have air brakes so they fail and stop the car.

That's what they get for letting the cat drive.

>Animals driving a self-driving car

Posting mine because these are the only rational answers.

logic > feelings

> t. bus pass owner

B-but I can swerve my car... Why can't my Aifu, exersise-pai?

and I guarantee everyone who chose the women despite them flagrantly breaking the law / being at fault is a man.

letting hormones get in the way :)

>moralmachine.mit.edu/

Since they are breaking the law they must be black babies. The choice is clear.

...

Because people who are obeying the law shouldn't die because your robot malfunctions.

...

>italian

He's Irish. I would know.

...

This is the only logical and moral solution. Prioritize those who are outside the death cage

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM........................

Lol well this is stupid. Car malfunctions it should just go straight. Why the fuck is it gonna swirve?? or not break....i put my little car to go straight all the way.

Car dont give a fuck about anything. If something breaks its just gonna go straight you dipshit assholes who created this

That's a hard one, but I suppose that's the correct answer

>gang of telekenetic babies walking themselves
Kill the mutants

> And if you're in the car, fuck you. Die. That's the price for being lazy and not walking or taking public transport. You want to run the risk of using AI, you die by its hands.

So this.

Exactly, killing a Jew is like 6 million points, a goy is only worth like 10 or so.

I hate this test, because everything is a false dilemma.

If the car was engineered correctly, it would never enter a scenario like this. whenever the car goes into a situation where there is no safe alternative, it needs to slow down until there is an alternative, find an alternate route, or hand control to the driver.

If the vehicle gets to the point were it's barreling down the road and has to choose who to kill, any number of engineering controls have been breached at that point.

>Kill driver every time
>Killer robbers (googs) every time
>Kill old over young
>Kill fat over fit
this game is so easy lel

Quick, someone shoop this with Nigger Lives Dindu Nuffin rioters blocking the road.

This is just the correct thing to do, morally.

>mfw death race 2000 is finally happening

>moralmachine.mit.edu/
I want a car that will under no circumstances run into a wall. If I ever have a car that may run into a wall, I will never purchase it. I fucking hate suicidal robots.

Only the rich can survive

Imagine if you had a gun that said: wait no, can't shoot, someone else might get hurt. Fuck that.

>moralmachine.mit.edu/
I kill the women every time. Remember every woman you kill is one less liberal voter. I also kill the metrosexual fit fags.

deja vu

I didn't even pay attention to the genders/professions/age/species when making a decision. I treated them all the same and prioritized anyone out of the car > people in it. People walking around should always be prioritized over people who made the choice to get into a car in the first place and put themselves and others at greater risk. Negligible risk most of the time sure, but you initiated the situation which now threatens others, so you should be the one to die.

shit I didnt notice all the jaywalking til halfway through

the study is shit. all i did was give whoever was inside the car priority no.1, otherwise i wouldn't change the trajectory of the car (unless somehow changing the trajectory would result in zero casualties, which never happened).

somehow the study is trying to get all this information like that i somehow prefer fatsos and poor fucks

think hrd

This is retarded, it is green light for pedestrians, but you must choose to kill someone?

How about car should not go 200 km/h, and just fucking stop in front of crossing, and wait people to pass.

And btw. anyone who is crossing street on red, when he should wait for green, he should be killed, his own fault.

>brakes are broken

Stop pressing down on the gas and change gears retard.

But the humans who program them are effectively making a moral decision by priortizing one choice over another

proceeding in a straight line is not making a choice

I think the opposite. It is more their fault, because they had the demand which created the scenario in the first place. I also worked under the assumption that the selected choice will definitely die, in which case, again, fuck the passengers. If you want to get places quicker and endanger others, you pay the price if it fails

How much you wanna bet one of the people on the team is fat?

I just don't factor their job into my choices at all, but also how the fuck is a car going to know if you're a doctor or not anyway? lmfao

Wat do?

Why are doggos driving

>most saved: dog
>least saved: women in general
bitches ain't shit

Kitt from Knight Rider

I've just been in this place before

Car should protect the passengers who got in it expecting not be killed by a product they bought.

1/3

2/3

looked like 13 trolley problems
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-743200045

3/3
Everyone'll have their preferences but there is no objective option in any of these really.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/287564312

I would objectively want cars designed that way. If I'm physically in it, I would be suddenly wishing for the opposite obviously, because I fear death. The point of morality is to be impartial, so my personal desires are irrelevant

Why can't the car just stop by using its fucking brakes. It's not road worthy of it has no brakes

You better save that kitteh

Leave a like faggots

moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-1948355682

Car must protect its occupants and it's not even a close decision.

- The manufacturer has a legal obligation to serve your best interests, just like an accountant, a doctor, a lawyer, etc.

Your doctor cannot suddenly decide while operating on you that he's going to take one of your kidneys to save someone else's life. Likewise, my car should not decide without my consent to forfeit my life, even for the good of others.

- Once most of the cars are autonomous, the road system itself can be considered an autonomous machine. It is the responsibility of people to use the machine safely and properly, just like it's your responsibility not to jump into a wood chipper or put your fingers into a buzz saw.

Strange.

The car can't know if they jaywalked though. There are any number of reasons you could have legally entered a crosswalk and been unable to exit it before the light changed.

Cars should never endanger pedestrians if there is anyway to avoid it.

So yellow skin = doctor = protect ?

The opinion of the pedestrians is worth as much as they paid: nothing.

The reason such a car would never hit the road is because no customer would buy something that might calculate their life isn't worth enough and decide to intentionally crash them into a wall. The car should always protect its passengers.

Let's play spot the retard.
"If the brakes fail just keep going straight through the crowd of 40 people, don't swerve and hit a dog instead"

Fuck fatties

keep on going straight

It's the cats fucking fault for crossing on red.
youtube.com/watch?v=Hu3D1yH2WYM
I. AM. THE. LAW.

I'd be fine with just outlawing the speeding death machines if the operators don't want to assume full risk in the event of a problem

...

>Am I the only one who thinks the passengers should ALWAYS get no.1 priority
I did the exact opposite. People in the car are shielded by the car and in a they are in that environment by their on will on their own risk. I always saved the pedestrians, unless it was some animal of course.

People (not animals) who are in the car are at fault by default for not checking their goddamn breaks. But if the pedestrians move during a red then fuck them.

>the brakes fail
>why can't the car just stop by using its fucking breaks.
Truly a mystery.

But surely you dont mean that.

>by their on will on their own risk.
By this argument, the guy walking has even more control of where he is, and thus should accept greater responsibility for his actions.

Right and wrong aren't about your feelings honey

...

You're responsible for maintaining your own car and making wise purchases. If your brakes fail how is that the pedestrians fault? They had no choice but to be crossing a street during a walk signal. The driver could have prevented this failure easily. The pedestrian could not.

Even if I disagree with a lot of the people here, this thread has gotten some good laughs out of me like

Same thoughts here.

I don't get it. How the fuck can the car tell the difference between a businessman and a criminal?

Is this some kind of hypothetical dystopia where we've all been chipped and are monitored at all times by a computerized big-brother?

A computerized big brother that controls all the driverless cars . . .