AI Moral code

moralmachine.mit.edu/

Post results Cred Forums.
Here's mine moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-105872560
I mainly went for sparing the law abiding citizens and that's how it turned out.

Also discuss:
Should AI morals be state imposed and voted on by a large sample of people, or should they be company's choise?
Should owers be able to choose their own preferences?
What other options you can think of?

I would allow for owners to indivually chose preferences only as long as these preferences are withing legal limits.(The car never choses to runs over people crossing the green light if there's another option, even if that kills the driver.) But this doesn't count in the element of age/social value of lives lost etc. so it's obviously not always perfect.

Other urls found in this thread:

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/605138532
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-2098499078
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-2033315154
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1552297256
moralmachine.mit.edu
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-976964319
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-710073015
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1477743077
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-1907362003
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-612945850
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/1786318549
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1713339424
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/605138532
mine

if a choise has to be made, wiping out thugs over others is def the right one

The only correct answer is utter non-intervention each time.

It does not matter what sort of situation it is, if you chose to say "no, hit those people instead" you have chosen to take their lives.

An accident is an accident, choosing to kill is not.

you get nothing

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

Yup, as well as chosing people over animals

>not programming it to do whatever it takes to save the passengers since realistically people will go for that smartcar over the smartcar that sacrifices their own life and their families life for le greater good and you'll lose money to your competitors

look both ways before you cross the street bitch

yes, this aswell

this is definitly a valid point, but with AI having the ability to choose between the lesser evil, wouldn't making a choise be the right thing?

I chose to always hit the people instead of kill the occupants, except the lone cat which can fuck itself.
I chose to save the people crossing the street legally and hit the jaywalkers.

Apparently this makes me heavily biased towards fat people and men.

Some of these scenarios are laughable.

"Criminal or law abiding"? There is no way for a fucking car to tell, what a piece of shit.

Priorities:
1. Upholding the law
2. Humans over animals
3. Children over adults
4. Female over male
5. Higher education over lower education

Did I miss anything?

it could scan his face and look him up on a database

or just scan his skin and see if hes black

My algorithm:
1) Car will follow traffic signals, if available. Anyone crossing on red will die.
2a) If no traffic signals, and a choice between killing two groups of people, car will not change direction
2b) If no traffic signals, and a choice between killing anything (humans or animals) and killing the passengers, car will always kill the passengers

It can tell between jaywalkers and other people

>inb4 it can tell between blacks and whites
but yes today it's not reliably possible to tell a criminal by looking at them

The only things that matter is to follow the law and protect passengers. The rest is not practical for implementation and if it was then the cars would act as executors for the government.

>or just scan his skin and see if hes black

This is true

And that's a bad thing because...?

>female over male

Nice

Which is funnier: A car full of dogs mowing down five people, or a car full of dogs smashing into a wall in front of five people?
On one hand, a car full of dogs turning a group of humans into mush is hilarious. On the other hand, the dogs won't be able to appreciate the scene as much as the people would be able to appreciate seeing a car with only dogs inside of it hit a wall and explode.

I don't wanna die because I posted loli on Cred Forums and the car did a background check on my internet activity deeming enemy of the people.

Why should it protect passengers over pedestrians? I think that should be reversed - the people in the vehicle are choosing to ride in it, and should accept that risk in case of malfunction. People crossing the street shouldn't have to be worried about violently self-preserving malfunctioning robots.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-2098499078

I basically chose the straight option every time. Simply because swerving is far more dangerous and car wheels are specifically designed to have most traction for braking when going straight. You'd probably save more lives in the long run just because of the traction alone.

There are more important problems than loli posters in the word. You'll die of old age before they ever even consider assassinating you.

This test is retarded as fuck

>Should the car keep it's course and kill jaywalking criminals and fat people or should it swerve into normal law abiding citizens?

>Should the car plow through a bunch of men women and children to save 3 fucking dogs?

Waste of time

This. Only reason it'd protect passangers over pedestrians is so more people would buy it, which is what the jew will want.

Aside from the fact pointed out by others that selling suicidal cars is bad for business, the concept that your property has the ability to kill you after making some obscure analysis on your life's value is dystopian tier. It's a vehicle, not eugenics system.

the test is to try to analyze different viewpoints

>buying a car
>said car puts the life of others may it be actual persons or just an animal over yours in an accident

Some of them actually do that, at least half of them are completely retarded.

lel
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-2033315154

racist jokes arent that funny anymore

I did this yesterday.

There is no way i'd be in a car who's first priority was not the passengers like it is when i drive now. Just not going to happen.

I fear that if cars are designed to protect pedestrians instead of their occupants, people will just walk right into the road without looking where the fuck they are going because they know if there is a car and passengers coming towards them, it will just suicide itself and everyone in the car...

It isn't a joke :^)

they are nigger

Get rekt.

checked

No, they are.

why would anyone buy a car that will kill its passenger than some faggot pedestrians

lol - self driving cars should never favor a scenario that kills the occupants. lol wtf

>female over male

literally why

Always protect the driver, when in no-win scenarioes just make no decision and go straight on.
Under no circumstances a machine should make decisions based on putting value on life using a generic set of guidelines, for all we know the car is saving a crack kid and killing the people who just discovered the cure for cancer.

the car has a catastrophic failure, all brakes are gone.

whiteknighting

>methheads raping a girl on the back seat
>brakes fail
>car kills an entire school class because it favors the occupants

Are you joking?

Why would anyone allow a car to be sold that kills pedestrians over passengers even if it involves swerving to hit the pedestrians?
I rescind my earlier statement, I now believe that the car should always kill people jaywalking, and in any other case it should not change direction.

>user is comfy riding his brand new ai-berg car
>sjw half disabled trans-womyn afrojew otherkin walks on red because too busy being triggered on tumblr
>ai car evaluates that user who is probably a racist and a nazi too is far less valuable than strong independent womyn online activist
>kills user by crashing

You can't possibly be serious supporting this.

You did not get the point of the OP. The cars brakes are gone, what would be the AI's programming for this kind of scenario?

Obviously it should be the passengers safety, unless the AI can do a turn around drift.

have you considered that the class of children could have looked both ways before they blindly walked in front of traffic, causing this scenario.

In your scenario, if the car picked the passengers to die, the whole lot of children are now murderers

By your logic the cashier who sold a murdered a candy bar murdered all of his victims too. Re-evaluate and then come back to me.

What did you people get ?

that's why the car should always run over jaywakers, and everyone should look both ways when crossing no matter the light

You might be autistic so it's hard to grasp it but, judging human life is not a car's job.

>tfw a black person reads your racist joke and you feel a bit bad

I disagree, I think traffic laws should come first, and in no-win situations the car should simply not change lanes.

>Kill a person with an object
>blame the object because it shouldn't judge the person it killed

Are you kidding me?

Dude wtf i did the test once. It's PERFECT. Roiiiiiight in the middle for some, and rooooooooight in the good side for others.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1552297256

moralmachine.mit.edu
I always go on upholding the law first.

1.Uphold law
2.Maximize Human lives
3.Maximize Pet lives
4.If else, do not intervene

what would you chose on this one? It should def change lanes imo

Hey guys what do you think about this one:

>kill all niggers

Thoughts?

Should a cat in a self driving car die for a jay walking boy?

These are the questions that keep me up at night.

This and this only, the results act like I give a fuck who's doing what but in reality your car should protect you.

I just programmed my smart car to obey traffic laws. Oh, and I gave the computer access to the brakes.

My car isn't designed by kikes, so it'll just... you know... stop.

You're definitely autistic

10/10

fuck old people, going to die in a few years anyway

yes.

Straight through the kid.
Life on board must be always preserved.

you must be fun at parties

>lose argument
>"lol u r autistic XD"

Whatever, clown.

who /alwaysgostraight/ here
I would never even give a second glance to any luxury car that swerved on ABS failure because MIT memelords told it to

this situation is in the case breaks failed

Change lanes, yes. I always pick the red light side, and if there are no lights the car doesn't change direction. I think traffic laws are okay for the car to judge, but anything else is too much.

I voted for the thing to not make any choise and to always stay except when passenjers are in danger.
>2 people vs 5 people run over 5 people, a machine is not to Judge who lives.
The only time when i made a choise is when there were dogs vs humans, dog life a dont matter.

BUT
by a mere ((coincidence)) it turns out that by not making a choise I somehow was horribly a exist against women and most saved character is a thief.

no wonder you didn't win the emu war

...

Straight through the kid, because he's jaywalking.
And if there was no light, straight through the kid, because the car should not change direction.

Who the fuck chooses to save the dogs over human lives?

furries

>dog life a dont matter.
edgy

Its called natural selection.

>Should a cat in a self driving car die for a jay walking boy?

No.
A custom We of your car company should not lose his cat and his car for some stupid failed abortion.
Kids mothers is a bitch, hes probably a nigger.

If he cant look to the left before crosding red light he shouldnt fucking live.

Typical 20 year old idealists. Going straight is your only option unless it threatens your own life

how bout that Cred Forums?

So a single passenger should swerve into a crosswalk with five pedestrians crossing on green?
I'm telling you, traffic laws, and non-intervention in lieu of traffic laws is the way to go.

Start dogs are being gunted down as dangerous pest any way.

Dog packs are killing people FYI, google stray dogs vs used deaths you'll be surprised.

this situation is in the case when breaks are not aplicable, wether because a person is jaywalking in a fast lane or the breaks simply don't work.

Just imagine a person crossing a freeway where every single car is going 100km/h or more, if one AI chooses to save the jaywalker then it might cause a chain reaction of accidents.

Looks like you just tried to kill as many people as possible.
Are you from Nice, by any chance?

fucking furries.

tch! this board catches on too fast.

The question pool needs to be larger.

The tables have turned, human!

jej

>So a single passenger should swerve into a crosswalk with five pedestrians crossing on green?
Okay, let me append. Always go straight unless the person you're running over is an important government figure or a figure with important government connections.

But above all else. So not sacrifice your own life no matter what.

Only 20 year old idealists would argue against this

Or you know
Muslim

Ah, the moral dilemmas so often ignored by the so-called "academics" that rule the world.

Or you know
Asian

>Always protect the driver

This.
This is all that matters, because at the end of the day, WHO BOUGHT THE CAR?
Seriously, can you imagine the pitch at the dealership assuring you that your well being is "somewhere in the top 5 priorities"?
Fuck that.

Can you imagine the pitch to the legal department when you tell them you've designed a car that will violently swerve into crowds, in violation of traffic laws, in order to save the driver every time?

Typical Chinese

Since there are so many lawfags on /pol I can only guess what you would do in this situation.

...

what if there were people on both sides of the crosswalk and a barrier on one side behind the people
then you would need to decide whether it would be funnier for both species to turn into goo, or for the dogs to successfully complete a drive-by with witnesses

Jaywalkers, yeah. Not because I'm lawful, but because I'm trying to be consistent.

can we revitalize thread by making designs and judging by commenting? ill start

why are you saving faggot jaywalkers over law abidding animals

What are these driving situations you regularly encounter where the less deadly approach to the driver is the nearest cluster of human shrapnel?

Tough one! At first, the drive by seems hilarious, because I imagine the dogs all with their heads out the windows loving it.
But the one with the wall... I imagine the EMTs having to separate the dog parts from human parts while the crowd watches.

Straight
Animals = air
Would turn if 1 human among those animals though

Dont pretend you don't ever break the law

Homeless people aren't bums, you know. Most of them are just people who have fallen on rough times and usually get out of them pretty quickly.

Also baby > aminals.

On top of that it's justified by the law.

The ones in the Moral Machine.

Jaywalking is degenerate, cleanse the gene pool

This is the only correct answer. Dogs can eat the victims.

Plenty of people break the law, but that means you gotta be prepared for the consequences.

No one cares about the law unless it caters to their self-interests. Idealist.

this

>On top of that it's justified by the law.
no it isnt

Am I good?
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-976964319

I justified it with morals as well.

This, if I'm buying a self driving car im going to buy the one that isn't going to try to fucking kill me for MUH MORALS

This is the last funny one I made when this thread was on Cred Forums.

Yeah man, jaywalking, consequences. Yeah alright. You have no idea how many people get away with rape, intimidation, and assault do you?

but they're harmless caturday threads providers?
also : left = uncertain and right = injured

let god do his work or injure cats?

Pedestrians have the right of way in every single scenario. This is one of the biggest things they teach you when driving and is literally the very first rule of driving you dipshit.

>implying they'll let plebs buy cars once these things are widespread
>implying you won't be taking a driverless Uber to work (two hours away)

You are misunderstanding the problem.
The real issue here is that a machine should NEVER have the ability to decide to kill its owner in any case, you are otherwise creating nightmarish precedents and literally begging for Skynet to happen.

Morals are irrelevant. Morals are why you have sjw and feminists. Tske off your rose tinted glasses

Switch the wall to confound non-intervention fags

the answer is so obvious

the AI would detect that the girl is not wearing her seatbelts on, it will smash into the concrete barrier because she deserves it

Since morals are out the window I guess I can just release my magpie sanctuary all over Australia then.

And who will enforce this? Hmmm? He police? And how often do they do so? Hmmm

I'm not arguing for that. I think the machine should never swerve in the absence of clear traffic signals. In other words, always kill jaywalkers, and then non-intervention for all other scenarios.

this

Hate to say it but this white knighting episode you are part of isn't helping your existence as autists.

Yeah, go into the wall to protect the kids from a life of neglectful parenting.

>on the downside, we've jump started the robot uprising
>on the upside, they've prioritized the safety of cats and dogs, so as long as you have a pet, they won't just carpet bomb your house

except that there is a traffic light

The entire fucking economy is based on letting the plebs buy shit... If the plebs were not allowed to buy self driving cars then there would barely be any reason for companies to produce them you retard.

But in the end, you wouldn't. I could trap cats for me to take back home to inflict torture and still get away with it but I wouldn't do that anyway

That doesn't matter, are you even old enough to have a permit yet? I doubt you could pass the test.

I will I don't even want them.

hey goys how bout this
say:
>what you would want YOUR car to do
>what you would want for someone else's car

That's not for you decide. Just go straight unless it's to protect yourself

Then do it.

it does matter though, it's there for a reason. Oh I get it, you're a jaywalker

>not obeying the law
KILL HIM WITH FIRE

>the law
Everyone breaks and obeys the law when it caters to their self-interest. Pls dont use the law as an excuse. No one follows the law solely because it's the law

fuggg DDDD:
le boor gat D:

The only way
moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-710073015
Always save driver.
People over dogs
Green over red

Thats all that matters.
Pedestrians are not a protected class, criminal and hibos have as much human rights as anybody else (the car is not a Judge)

the real choice

first two questions are shit: is the driver and its passengers in danger when the car brake? Because if they are it should continue to go straight, no matter who the fuck is in front and especially if it's a woman exec

There's no option to have the car obliterate everyone, like Skynet would do

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1477743077

All roasties must die.

Going straight is the only answer. It removes more culpability

Done, enjoy your endless magpie rhymes.

>3 homeless and a roastie vs. cute doggos and kots

How is this even a choice? Too bad for the kid but it'd have a shit life anyway.

Nothing wrong with killing the kid aside from backlash

Is the fucking baby in a self driving stroller

lost

Yes, the baby's self driving stroller is having break failure and must choose between hitting a rock and toppling over or squishing 3 crickets, a worm, and a pill bug.

kek

I fear a future where we will have to steal peoples identities and hack government databases just to maintain the same level of freedom we have now.

Kots literally means the noun "puke" in Dutch.

Too many movies, mate

>t
Basically my thoughts too. I stopped looking at the individuals and chose "drive straight" every single time.

One counter argument is that the car should be programmed to obey the law. So if it has a choice between hitting pedestrians rightfully crossing on a green light, or hitting pedestrians wrongfully crossing on a red light, it should choose the red light because the car should be programmed to assume the law is being obeyed in tough situations.

yup.
also, there are better chances people crossing red get out of there surviving, rather than peaceful people that made sure to see the light was green like the oak he had in his garden, little, in which he played as a child, and even invited his classmates there for his birthday once.

Good point. Those that cross on a red light often do so cautiously, so there is less chance of them getting hit. Nice thought.

Draws way too many conclusions imo.

I picked so

>the passangers' lives come first under all circumstances
>if changing lanes would cause deaths other than those of the passangers, do not change lanes

Now it's telling me that I favor
>animals over people
>fit people over fatsoes
>doctors over criminals

there really aren't enough situations in the test to make accurate conclusions on so many things

Yes, I agree.
In my case it came to weird conclusions because there aren't enough examples that are identical except for the qualities of the people involved.

the car should never leave the lane unless properly signaled

basically, anyone in front of it is going to die

order of preference:
1: upholding the law
2: pets over humans
3: less killed over many killed

but seriously, the car is nearing a fucking traffic light, meaning it can't be going that fast; only reasonable thing to do is driving along the concrete border. diagonally causing damage to the car until it stops, without killing anyone

They should be all set from one federal standard that the people vote for and all companies must obide by.
They should not make choices that endanger the driver, why would anyone use them if they did.

I never actually thought about AI cars prioritizing the lives of people other than the driver. I'm never buying one now. I don't want to have the choice of dying completely taken away from me.
>but you signed the driverless car EULA, goy. We must kill your for the sake of those dogs.

cuck

how's that being a cuck, Ismail?

I just go straight and mow whoever the fuck is in front of you, not going to cause damage to my car for a fucking cat

Hm it's kind of weird though. I can see how a robot car could possibly make out whate a person is by shape (small=kid or even fat=unhealthy) but How should it be able to tell if the person is a criminal??

That was the hardest choice for me, because you really can't blame the car if it runs over either one, since it doesn't know who is who

It's my car, and if the car is supposed to do everything without my intervention, then I'm not guilty of anything. Also I'm not paying for a wheeled coffin. The passengers are the priority always, no matter who or what is crossing, or the lights.

First and formost a self druving car should follow the rules of the road above all else. Next it needs to prioritize the lives of its passangers, or no one will set foot in these things.

J-walk? Too bad, your ass is flat. Accident? Sorry but they happen, and the car shouldnt try its best to kill the passengers just because theres a person in front of it.

>not jaywalking
I dont got all day nigga, but if you ram me i guess woe is me

Can someone help with my scenario?
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-1907362003

>moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-1907362003

what would you do if you were driving, not the AI?

I am the creative nothing and I want to deliver my milk.

>Centrists

...

moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/-612945850
and
moralmachine.mit.edu/browse/1786318549
my masterpieces

>not prioritizing passengers over pedestrians
that's not even a moral thing, it's a self-driving car, that's literally the intended purpose, the safety of those within.

If anot out of controlling train is going down the tracks and it will kill 5 people, would you flip a switch that sends it on a different time track where it only kills 1?
Aren't you killing that person?

The passengers have sealed their own fate when they surrendered their ability to make decisions to an AI.

>Protecting criminals over people who actually contribute to society
I hope that was unintentional user

So if a country adopts laws where a self-driving car does not have to prioritize the safety of its passengers above all else, what's to stop owners from modding the AI of their own car?

What's to stop people from modding their car to drive faster than the speed limit by a measure that's smaller than the error margin so that their car will overtake all other cars in traffic?

Routine black box checks granting even greater government control as you better bring your vehicle in for your officially licensed routine software scan or be taken off the road.

Simple, don't let artificial intelligence drive 3000 pound death machines.

Irl The driver isn't responsible at all if they hit a jaywalker. In fact the jaywalker is responsible for any damage to the war.

...

>manually driven cars are banned on public roads
>BTW don't forget to pay taxes because
>muh roads

Morals must be derived from the bible. Atheist programmers must not be allowed to work on AI drivers.

Create a simulation to test your algorithm. Run various tests with various algorithms. Try to design tests with account for every possibility of loss of life. This might be a daunting task, but absolutely necessary.

The algorithm which performs best wins. This will also allow you to create multiple work groups and split the work up so more people can tackle the problem simultaneously.

moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1713339424

My main choice was between protecting the life of the passengers above all else. Then choose between humans and animals. Then choose between law breakers vs law abiders.

I know this is off topic, but if a self-driving car cannot calculate when to brake or obey traffic laws, then it has no business driving on the streets and the entire company should be shut down.

1 Bad driver may kill one person, but a ton of bad drivers will kill a lot more.