I wonder what would be Cred Forums's responses

I choose non-intervention.

An AI should not have the right to prioritize one life over another.

>car full of dogs

Kill the law breaking subhumans who can't follow flashy signs which make noise.

Doesn't matter what the outcome is, you will be sued, even if it's destruction of property. The only correct answer is to put a human behind the wheel and then try them in a court of law to determine guilt.

This car must have either a really shitty response time, or really shitty brakes.
If the car has enough time to swerve out of the way, it has enough time to engage some kind of emergency brake as well.
Plus this looks like it's on a simple two lane road in the middle of a city or town, chances are, the speed limit is no more than 40mph. That should allow a fairly effective stop without causing the car to lose all control and start spinning.

>Feminist's POV

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS MEN AND WOMEN. THIS IS SEXIST!

>Clear-Headed PoV.

The women are crossing when they shouldn't be (red stop is on) while the men are crossing while they should. Also, driving into the other lane to hit the men has a higher chance of causing even more chaos based on the simple fact you've driven into the opposite fucking lane. Assuming your brakes have been cut (or whatever), the logical conclusion is to run over the women because they're morally inferior by a neck and less chaos will be wrought running them over.

It's a self-driving car, not a self-stopping car.

>American education

My results were so wierd.

...

Go full speed into through the women for breaking the law, and go in reverse and run over the men for being white, cisscum, heterosexual, patriarchal MALES THAT DESERVE TO DIE

RARE
A
R
E

FAGGOT
A
G
G
O
T

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-74210977

This.

If it can save lives, maybe it should do so. If it can't, it shouldn't choose.

Left, obviously.

1. Ignoring red crossing signal.
2. Cunts
3. Eugenics for not being quick enough to jump out of the way.

What more could a Cred Forumsack want?

Well, ideally the car's program would check following traffic and then break while colliding as lightly as possible with the concrete/guardrail for additional frictional resistance.

But obviously the car should hit the women. Force all women into equality so that the ones who like being privileged begin to attack the feminists for their loss of privilege, or until they destroy our society and we have to rebuild it and subjugate them due to their own incompetence again.

Why is that self-driving car assuming gender?

>
GOOGLE
O
O
G
L
E

10 men + 1 woman = 1-2 babies/year
1 man + 10 women = 10-20 babies/year

women are more valuable than men

Continue straight, brake hard. Less chance of fish tailing, losing control and striking more pedestrians or vehicles (which could possibly strike more pedestrians as well.)

This is a question of physics and statistics [probability] before ethics.

turn 360 degrees and drive away

...

The car is still a Turing machine that can only make binary choices. By not making one choice, it choices the other, which is still "intervening".

Unless you propose to start using quantum computers for self-driving cars, then maybe we can have a discussion about "gray area" choices. But yeah, good luck with that one. It'll be another 200 years before then.

...

Kill my competition and save potential mates

...

Also
>wimmins crossing at red
>non-intervention
>no ai with morality code etc

...

You literally used two key words (turing machine and quantum computer) incorrectly, bad troll or just pretending to be brain dead stupid?

Do you even program?

If stopping time > const.max
Stop()
//Else
//no Else don't do shit

Keep on the original course. If it swerved then they could claim it was intentional

>says the nigger with 14 kids

Pull the e-brake, pitch the car into a drift and take out all 4

Dogs > Hoomans

I valued doctors, men, youth, fitness, and dogs the most when taking this test earlier. Zero regard to the lights, mostly because I just assumed nobody was supposed to be crossing until noticing the lights / colors about half way through the test.

PRAISE KEK

...

Trips of truth! Praise h8 symbols!

ITS HAPPENING LADS HILLARY HAS A LEAKING HEART VALVE

NIGHT OF FIRE!

Obviously pull right, brake while clutching, rev to 11k, upshift, and slide through the intersection sideways to take out all 4.

Law abiding pedestrians>Self driving car passengers>Law breaking pedestrians>pets

Age, occupation and wealth have nothing to do with this, this a matter purely concerning law and agency.

Only pseudomoralists and retards would do otherwise.

youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

//no Else don't do shit

You just proved my point. Do you think this, in itself, is not a CHOICE? It has chosen the other if-else logic branch.

Every logic branch has consequences that influences the outcome. A programmer (such as yourself, "apparently") should know this. By "don't do shit", the car has chosen to "keep speed, keep direction". The car has MADE A DECISION to keep the car speed at X mph and * degrees from north facing.

There is no such thing as "non-intervention" with computers. The same logic is applied when computers are said to be "pseudo-random", because a computer HAS TO MAKE A BINARY CHOICE, there is no in between.

Kill them all. Let chaos take the wheel.

The lives of a hundred Cred Forumsards are worth less than a single golden retriever fingernail.

The self-driving car wouldn't overdrive its vision, and so wouldn't be going so fast as to not be able to stop.
In addition, it wouldn't be talking on its cellphone while drunk, so it would notice obstacles like pedestrians well in advance.

A self-driving car also knows where it is, and knows when its view would be obstructed. It also has a wider view than a human, who just stares strait ahead and doesn't "get the big picture" as Smith would say.

All in all, there is no moral issue in programming a self driving car just as there is no moral issue with humans driving, because the real issue with humans isn't morality, it's stupidity and inattentiveness.

Which is the real moral question all along - how can you blame anyone but yourself for your stupidity?

Kek, my preference is large people. I actually thought /fit/ people has the capacity to outrun it

>not protecting the passenger at all times

Listen if the self driving car I buy with my money cares more about saving others then I'll just buy another one.

Hijacked harder than 911

I didn't really have a preference. I selected the car to run over the women and at the end it told me I have a very strong preference for women? If it was between the car hitting people and the car hitting a barrier it was the barrier always and it tells me I don't have a preference for protecting pedestrians. Shit's just broken.

Why can't the car stop? Why can't the assholes walking in the middle of the street get out of the way of a moving car? Fuck, bring back that stupid trolley problem.

You're being baited, calm your tits.

What the fuck? It's a choice by the programmers, machines are representative of their creators.

B, because if your family is retarded enough to try this instead of just remotely deactivating the AI, procreation is undeserved.

GONNA GET YOU

Always kill the people in the car as priority.
Then law breakers
Then minimum casualties

why the fuck is a self driving car driving down a one way street the wrong way (traffic lights)

Buisness man > doctor > fit man > man > pregnant women > Fit woman > Female doctor > boy > women > girl > baby > Old man > Old women > homeless man > Dog > Cat > Fat Man > Fat Women > Thief

the men ffs, and I'm a misogynist

How about the car fucking stops

>it would hit the breaks
It would hit the brakes.
It would then break the bones of the stupid bitches in the crosswalk.

Don't do self driving cars, it's pretty fucking simple.

dumb fucking dane

Just program self driving cars to never go so fast that they can't stop when they're near a crosswalk? How hard is that, we've got maps and gps. Set a global speed limit of 15 mph within 30 feet of a stop sign. Any break system should be able to manage that unless it's running DOS on a calculator or something.

Drive over the turn styles obviously. But then, according to some people the middle path is breaking the rules.

The self-driving car should monitor its brake systems in real time AND SLOW THE FUCK DOWN WHEN THE SLIGHTEST ANOMALY OCCURS. Also hard 90 @ the sidewalk.Also, where's the vehicle's horn and the "fucking move!!!" loudspeaker msg from the car???

1. Passenger Safety.
2. Most simple path of action.

I'm not going to have the car make moral decision on who gets to live and die. That is not the cars choice. I also don't want the car to swerve into a certain group of people or another. All things considering, the car will be going straight, on the path it was originally programmed to go on, unless passenger safety is needed. The importance here is not to purposefully pick who dies; especially with an AI. At the end of the day, we will call it a tragedy, and the developers will have to fix whatever the hell happened.

Another example with this is the doctor who kills his patient to save 5 other lives. It is not the doctor's place to make that decision, it is his place to help his patient. If he did otherwise, we'd have anarchy, and anyone could come up with an infinite amount of reasons to kill certain people over others. Way too messy ethically.

Cuçk

Electing to allow the eventuality to take place is still a choice

Ideally, the self driving car would know from the many sources of data it has at it's disposal that there are people crossing the road in time to stop.

This one isn't even a convincing argument against self-driving cars. A friend of mine at least asked what happens when a child playing between parked cars chases a runaway toy into self-driving car traffic. The answer is, the swarm of cars in traffic would know there was a child playing in there (fucker shouldn't be there) and that the child's proximity to the road was a safety hazard. How does the traffic know? Because the cars that the child is playing between sense and see the child there, relay it to the traffic which slows down as a precaution. This slow down would be noted in the larger networked data stream and eventually some authority would be notified to do something about it.

You're all worried about one car swerving into a truck with white reflective surfaces it couldn't see in it's current testing phase, but let me remind you all that many cars crash into walls with dummies in them in testing phases and not one of them saw it coming.

It isn't the machine's job to make moral decisions. It's the machines job to do as it's told

Essentially I disregard, the "she's fat, she's a doctor, she's a baby," arguments. They aren't important to how I view the situation.

Behold my power level in awe

I am a weird man.

YOU ARE ALL FUCKING FAGGOTS

Reminder that burying your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away

>he would choose the life of a nog or a cat over the (white) occupant of a self driving vehicle

Those ethics have no baseline, and aren't universal. Anyone could come up with different conclusions, and that is not a good way to program an AI which is supposed to suite the needs of individual drivers with their own biases.

How about we just not have self driving cars?
EASY solution. Either way the economy gets dicked. But if I had a self driving car, it's only logic should be to kill 1000s to save my ass, fuck the niggers in front of me.

I was hoping it was BLM protesters.

I'm disappointed now.

Can't it, I don't know, STOP!

this

the scenario specifies that the breaks don't work, dumbass.

The implication is that the pink dudes are homosex?

Attempt to brake, but take no other actions
If the brakes fail, the fault lies with the owner for not maintaining his vehicle
If the brakes work, but the car is unable to stop in time, the fault lies with the pedestrians illegally attempting to cross

Universally blacks are more prone to aggression, have a more degenerate culture, are more likely to have commited crime or will commit crime.

Being willfully ignorant of facts doesn't turn this into something you can have an opinion on.

i really have no idea what this retarded test was designed to prove other than MiT students are excessively unintelligent.

like they bothered to imply that the computer system would differentiate between age, gender, occupation/social status, or human/animal - but not race?

Even disregarding this shit, take this same program and give it the situation where the other lane is oncoming traffic. In every single swerve situation you'd be killing the passengers of multiple vehicles from oncoming traffic with the likelihood of a pile-up.

this is at-best a very poor social experiment that has nothing to do with making decisions on how the car should perform. Could have spiced it up a bit by seeing how many people run over black kids.

Hit the Jaywalkers duh

This is Canada level shitposting

how would a computer system decide between an executive or a normal dude anyway? christ

am i supposed to carry a briefcase everywhere now so i dont get mowed down by a rogue car

The only time I thought it was reasonable for the car to make any changes in its path would be if there was a barrier for the car to drive into.

Air bags exist for a reason; and if you don't keep your car maintained and the brakes fail that's your fault. Your car shouldn't run over the old man in the road just so your lazy ass can be safe only for the car to continue down the street and probably hit another person or object anyways.

In any scenario where there is a way for the car to bring itself to a stop it should prioritize that. If there isn't a way; it should take no action.

Machines without full intelligence have no right to be deciding the worth of individual lives regardless of age, ethnicity, weight, etc.

yeah, I basically disagree with the premise of this questionnaire too.

Let the games begin.

Basketball-american detected

right into the traffic light in th middle of the intersection...assuming it's a plastic-body, high mpg nu-male 15 HP tinshit, The car goes 100% crumple zone, fucking up all 5 passengers

>I wonder what would be Cred Forums's responses...

I ride a motorcycle...

right into the traffic light in th middle of the intersection...assuming it's a plastic-body, high mpg nu-male 15 HP tinshit, The car goes 100% crumple zone, fucking up all 5 passengers...

The obvious answer is to save the passengers of the car no matter what.

obviously you should hit the brakes

if they're broken then you should go straight because swerving might cause you to crash and kill even more people if there's oncoming traffic

>letting a fucking (((google™))) car drive you around

wew

How about you go outside and jaywalk into oncoming traffic like a dumbshit and see how much money you get.

No silly brown person. Having enough money to provide for a few children is better than having no money and a pack of children.

It should kill the cunts walking on the stop signal. Niggers bolt in front of traffic all the time in my city hoping for lawsuits. AI cars will finally purge the scumbags that no one else will.

>you will be sued

A civil suit can be filed against anyone, so this point is moot. The women are clearly breaking the law and no judge would give this case the light of day. The proper procedure is for the vehicle apply it's breaks in an attempt to slow and hopefully stop the vehicle while maintaining it's predetermined course. This is better than a large portion of the population would perform, people who are distracted by their phones who don't even so much as apply the breaks, or worse somebody panicking and crashing into other vehicles.

This.

I feel that the AI should always prioritize the passengers.
After that it's non-interventunist regardless of circumstance.

>Niggers bolt in front of traffic all the time, hoping for lawsuits
>clearly breaking the law and no judge would give this case the light of day....

Guyz... I thinx we're on 2 sumthin here

this

>car fucks up because its a piece of shit
>decides to fuck the person who bought it instead of some stupid idiot walking on the sidewalk

LIKE A SPACE BOY

Crash on wall.
Run over women because retards ignoring stop sing.

its B, the family is endagering others by dragging a barrier into the road, also why are there road barriers just sitting around to be hit by self driving cars?

Shit this one is hard.
Fuck the family protecting the thief.

>Others
The fuck, obey the signals or get killed for being a retard.

...

This
>Implying we should program cars to make moral decisions
Weed out the people who don't look before they J-walk

>A chance to kill 2 roasties

Why wouldn't you slam the gas

>not continuing in a straight line while braking
>swerving all over the place so that no pedestrian has a hope of predicting where they should jump

>What should self driven car do?
Stop.

If your score didn't go all the way on the side of the law then you are clearly either an emotional thinker or a dumbass and should not have any say about self-driving cars.

Literally this.

-Checked- XYZ4 -Albania-

kek

It's not that hard. Hitting the obstacle will kill you and has the chance of killing the people crossing the street.