[Closed] Good BBC article about future driverless cars and their ethics.

Yep all the usual stuff there, simple version is in any other situation we would go for the safer technology without insisting on it being perfect. Driverless cars will make better decisions quicker and in most cases avoid the situations that cause the accident in the first place.
If you can't answer the who would you kill questions how can the tech answer it?

Another way to look at it...

Introduce autonomous cars that will resolutely follow the rules of the road and always react instantly, resulting in a massive reduction of deaths and injuries and keep the vehicle under control to the point of any unavoidable impact.

Or, because an autonomous car may decide to hit two kids who have run into the road, rather than sacrifice an innocent cyclist in the opposite lane, (who has a family waiting at home) decide to ban them, and stick with cars...

Controlled by humans who's driving standard is determined by skill level/mood/stress/tiredness/drink/drugs/medication/health, tendancy to break rules and laws, take calculated risks, get distracted by in-car tech/phones/offspring/attractive pedestrians, and finally, who hundreds of times per day, react to avoid a minor impact with a vehicle/pothole and either lose control, or deliberately swerve, inadvertently killing or injuring innocent bystanders.

I don't really think the ethical side has much mileage as a human rarely has the time or skill to choose between kids or cyclist in that split second moment of panic, by the time the human has moved their limbs, the autonomous car would already be emergency braking, perhaps before you've even seen the hazard.

We are probably entering the most risky phase of autonomous cars, as they only partially autonomous, lulling the driver into a false sense of security. Once fully autonomous this won't be an issue.

Take Tesla. 1 person has died as he is suspected of watching a movie, and his Tesla sensors missed an unlit truck stuck across the road. But in the US they don't have side under-run bars on their trailers so the sensors could see straight under it. Tesla will learn from this and add the extra sensor needed. The US haulage/government will not, and continue to allow trucks on the road that don't have any under-run protection.

And then there is this clip, where the Tesla detected slow traffic before the driver in front started braking (and crashing). The driver in front chose to look in his mirror rather than brake, the driver of the Tesla could see brake lights for three seconds and the car chose to brake when the driver didn't. And...it stopped relatively gently rather than a full on emergency stop and getting rear ended.

And the first clip in this one...the passenger asks the driver if he is going to brake, then car saves him before he even sees the hazard... (although the driver claims he took over and I didn't hear the beeps so perhaps the human did manage to avoid it)

I’d support a system where driverless cars are given to those who are caught for speeding, so take away the speeders car and replace it with a Nissan Leaf Driverless System.

I reckon Merc/BMW and Audi would then, when selling vehicles, give the potential owner a 6 week series of lessons on how to drive to the Highway Code (including indicator usage and no overtaking in built up areas)

😆

But I see driverless cars as a pointless nanny state intrusion for the main mass of journeys. Fine if the intention is to replace taxis and busses but not normal human transport. But the influx of driverless cars as independent transport systems for the infirm, ill, blind, medically incapable to drive would mean a mass influx or more vehicles on the road network.

But I see driverless cars as a pointless nanny state intrusion for the main mass of journeys

Remind me again, how many people are killed on the roads every year?

If you can't answer the who would you kill questions how can the tech answer it?

Quick summary

Killed 1,732
Seriously injured 22,137
KSI1 23,869
Slightly injured 162,340
All casualties 186,209

Sounds like individual freedoms are costing lots of people their rights to be alive and uninjured.

Didn't Mercedes say that they had decided to always protect the people in the car.

i.e. their paying customers rather than some random strangers.

i.e. their paying customers rather than some random strangers.

anagallis_arvensis - Member
But I see driverless cars as a pointless nanny state intrusion for the main mass of journeys
Remind me again, how many people are killed on the roads every year?

MikeW posted it, thanks.

What about replacing motorbikers and motorbikes with driverless cars... I think I’d honk at that opportunity...

I dont think motorbikers should be replaced by driverless cars. Maybe replace motorbikes with driverless cars?

A lot of these autonomous systems are still in deep development and governments are currently looking to understand what kind of legislation is required before members of the public are allowed to regularly use them.

The hypothetical "choose who to kill/save" idea is a bit of a stretch. The vast majority of vehicle drivers fail to go through this process in the event of a crash and most crashes are due to some level of pilot error on the part of one or more of the people involved; in other words someone either doesn't react in time or does something stupid and someone else doesn't, or cannot, react in time to this. This is one reason why insurance companies have gone from being the most vocal opponents of Autonomy to being an initially cautious and then more active supporter of it.

Interesting point about the Google cars in the US. They have been involved in (very few) crashes but these have with one or two exceptions been due to be driven cars driving [i]into[/i] them. Autonomous cars tend to er on the side of caution, something that people don't necessarily do...there have been road rage style crashes where drivers have been frustrated by an autonomous car being driven slower( slightly under speed limit,) and then reacted against this!

So, as a thought.. autonomous or driverless cars should be used as punishment tools.. maybe once the passenger is “loaded” they could be handcuffed to the seat or knocked out with knockout gas.. to make them more efficient the vehicles could pick up two or three “loads” at a time, and drop them off one by one at thier chosen destination...

I’m definitely seeing an upside to this.

Who to kill?

Simple, it should always be the contents of the driverless car - and that should be legislated for.

That way there would be sufficient pressure on the carmakers to make the cars actually safe rather than compromise for "efficiency".

I like bikebouy's suggestion above but I reckon it can be improved by putting those drivers on bicycles and making them do TTs on roads near busy pubs after closing time.

The breaks have failed

muddy@rseguy - Member

A lot of these autonomous systems are still in deep development and governments are currently looking to understand what kind of legislation is required before members of the public are allowed to regularly use them.

The car scenario in the argument is interesting, relevant and most people can grasp it. There are many other AI scenarios that we're going to have to deal with that present similar moral dilemmas that might be slightly harder to grasp, less obvious and perhaps far more serious.

One issue is that most of the companies developing ai (and the compaines most likely to succeed) are private companies. Google, Facebook etc. Do these companies have a moral compass or are they just trying to be the biggest and the best in social media/tech. If they have a moral compass is it the right one?

It could be argued that Google and Facebook already have "ai" systems dictating what we consume and how we interact. It could be argued that these algorithms have already changed our world, influenced major world events....

Autonomous cars tend to er on the side of caution, something that people don't necessarily do...there have been road rage style crashes where drivers have been frustrated by an autonomous car being driven slower( slightly under speed limit,) and then reacted against this!

A couple of high ranking traffic police I've spoken to have said they believe drivers becoming frustrated with non autonomous cars was a major factor in a lot of collisions.

A couple of high ranking traffic police I've spoken to have said they believe drivers becoming frustrated with non autonomous cars was a major factor in a lot of collisions.

In terms of Moral Obligations we can do something about that by using legislation to certify the choices these systems make.

mikewsmith - Member

It's almost like we can see a factor in a lot of collisions

Yeah sure, I'm just pointing out that people getting pissed off at autonomous cars is not a phenomenon unique to autonomous cars.

I don't have a problem with the concept of driverless cars I should point out as I posted the link in the op.

I just find the problems they raise intriguing.

As said,a human driver will act upon instinct as much as anything to avert a crash scenario. Relying on experience and luck as much as anything.

The fact a driverless car will have the time on many occasions to make a logical* choice on whos life it might decide to take in a crash, as the lesser of evils, is what I find interesting.

As in a good post above someone said driverless cars will be designed by the likes of Google,fb etc.

What if just one line of code amongst millions gives a bias to hit the bike rather than hit the truck in a theoretical scenario?

Ie, passenger in the driverless car has higher chance of survivability hitting the rider. Also cyclist is less likely to to have back up of insurance company and legal team from the get go anyway.

I realise the later point it a bit conspiratorial but big business can be exactly that.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure a lot of buyers would want to know the driverless car they were buying would choose to hit the rider rather than the truck don't you think?

Again, not a dig at driverless cars, it's just that they will be at the sharp and very public end of the whole AI debate in the years to come.

I'm all for any tech that can save lives but there is always a compromise and I am intrigued as to what and where it will be with AI.

*Dependant upon who or what decides are the logical choices.

Maybe once all the individual car AIs start communicating they'll collectively decide that all driving is dangerous and refuse to go anywhere.

It'll be more like Maximum Overdrive

But people get tied in knots on this- worrying about the "ethics" on a case by case basis makes little sense when you consider the bigger picture will be far less fatalities. "Who will it kill, the driver or the busfull of nuns", well, it'll make fatalities so much less commonplace that it could kill both and we still come out ahead.

And as someone said, people insist driverless cars should be perfect, but the benchmark is human drivers.

Did anyone see the autonomous robo sumo wrestlers on BBC news 😯

Holy crap.

I don't have to answer that question to pass a driving test, and I'm allowed to drive. So why would we dictate that the car has to have an answer to these unlikely scenarios before we're allow to get the benefits from it?

We could not even bother about such moral dilemmas and the driverless cars would still result in safer roads.

This daft trope keeps popping up so often I'm convinced a pro-car lobby group is pushing it to scare people off driverless systems

It's all based on a daft scenario that doesn't exist in real life, it's postulated on an autonomous car getting itself into a situation where it couldn't stop in time which isn't realistic. It's human drivers that do this. The autonomous car will never mount a pavement because it's against the law so the only logical question is what will happen if there are pedestrians in the road? It will slow down and stop. Other cars? It will slow down and stop. Imminent head on? Deploy airbags. Bear in mind that if something is on the wrong carriageway it won't be the autonomous vehicle.

Obvious ethical dilemma all autonomous vehicles should judge is whether or not to accept a journey which is short and easily walked, as if it’s undertaken by a vehicle it poses an unnecessary risk to society, and the human wanting it.

How about this scenario and a genuine wisdom here as I'm just interested in what you guys think.

Should a cars manufacturer be allowed to roll out an autonomous car that has safety concerns "weighted" towards is own occupants to the detriment of other road users? I'm sure a manufacturer might even have an obligation to do so perhaps?

At the moment you have better chances of surviving a crash in some cars more than others due to a myriad of safety features many of which people are willing to pay the excess for. I just wonder if we would arrive at a point where a certain manufacturer has a better reputation for safety as it out and out makes a selling point of its AI putting its passengers first with less compromises made for other road users.

A luxury car not just being about the prestige but about the fact it's manufacturer provides you with its own layers of insurance and has powerful government lobbies to ensure its vehicles and hence owners are protected in ways we can't really relate to at the moment.

Again lads, I'm not arguing about the fact these cars will save lives. They will. Not arguing at all in truth. I just think his a really interesting area of discussion. 🙂

I seem to remember that Tesla autopilot mode is still double the mileage per fatality than human drivers. Got no idea what it was based on, just a useless fact that lodged.

I welcome the auto drive mode. I drive tens of thousands of miles a year and see horrendous driving everyday, some of it me. Machines would remove or at least massively reduce; tiredness, excessive speed, rage, impatience, incompetence, bad judgement from the driving equation.

Admittedly the initial roll out will see accidents or fatalities due to bad software/hardware/ AI decision making but that should only be transient.

But when I reach the time where my reactions are slowing and my night vision no longer as sharp, self driving cars will hopefully keep my freedom to go where I like well into my old age.

With more people leasing cars and AI controlling the vehicle is there any requirement for insurance above theft cover, as any accident where automated cars crash into each other is beyond the owners control and down to the manufacturer to compensate for any damage caused by their faulty algorithm?
If this isn't the case the driver is only there to take responsibility on behalf of the manufacturer even though the accident is no fault of their own, they may as well just use automated taxi or bus and forget about owning a car which would surely then hurt profits unless they also became the owner of the bus or taxi service.

edhornby - Member

This daft trope keeps popping up so often ......

It's all based on a daft scenario that doesn't exist in real life,

That's because it's a thought experiment designed to inform the our thinking about the AI world we will soon be confronted by. Cars will probably be the least of out worries, but it is tangible for most people so it comes up again and again.

[quote=Ming the Merciless ]Admittedly the initial roll out will see accidents or fatalities due to bad software/hardware/ AI decision making but that should only be transient.

Even if there are any deaths caused due to such issues, there will still be an instant reduction in the death toll as the most dangerous part of the system is removed.

Agreed

Should a cars manufacturer be allowed to roll out an autonomous car that has safety concerns "weighted" towards is own occupants to the detriment of other road users?

I'm really looking forward to a driverless future. Could be a golden era for cycling, and given current progress I might actually live to see the revolution!

It's the KITT vs KARR argument isn't it.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure a lot of buyers would want to know the driverless car they were buying would choose to hit the rider rather than the truck don't you think?

Should a cars manufacturer be allowed to roll out an autonomous car that has safety concerns "weighted" towards is own occupants to the detriment of other road users? I'm sure a manufacturer might even have an obligation to do so perhaps?

A "driverless car" pretty much has to prioritise the safety of its occupants, otherwise no-one would buy them. You can legislate that all new cars have to have this system of course, but the system only really works if we're all using them and there are plenty of classic cars on the road which exemptions would have to be made for (you don't have to wear seat belts in a car of a certain age, for instance).

Driver [i]assisted[/i] cars on the other hand, makes perfect sense. The Tesla warning system in that video there is mightily impressive, though it needs to be a fire alarm rather than "beep beep beep."

I'm really looking forward to a driverless future.

For someone for whom driving is a means to an end sure, but I enjoy driving. To me that sounds like one of the most tedious things imaginable. Fortunately it's not going to happen, certainly in my lifetime.

Would you support riderless mountain bikes? Hop on at the trailhead, enjoy a nice swoopy ride down the black run, rinse and repeat. Sounds awesome, think of all the trips to A&E and burdens on the NHS it'd save.

Cougar - Moderator

Driver assisted cars on the other hand, makes perfect sense. The Tesla warning system in that video there is mightily impressive, though it needs to be a fire alarm rather than "beep beep beep."

Thing is though, once people get a taste for being chauffeured or a high level of autonomy they'll become used to/ dependent on the systems. The fact that super high end luxury cars are coming with these systems at the minute should inform us that this is a luxury extra that'll soon be being marketed as the next must have toy like electric windows, abs, air con etc so people will aspire to it.

There will be a short window of time where a hybrid human / ai system will be better than full ai but it'll soon be superseded by ai alone once enough data is gathered.

Cars could become like phones, with people wanting the latest firmware and os, without really needing or understadning the benefits, but wanting the upgrade or next generation anyway because it's new.

I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. Driver aids are becoming highly sophisticated and more commonplace. Auto-parking, lane assist, the higher-spec Mondeo can read road signs to tell you what the speed limit is and that tech will surely trickle down. That's a Ford family hatchback, not a Tesla.

But driverless? We don't yet have driverless trains (the DLR aside), and they're on bloody rails. If trains need drivers, cars surely do for the forseeable. Rail we can control, we could readily introduce driverless trains on selected routes (HS2 anyone?). Roads were never designed for that sort of thing, they're horribly complicated by comparison.

In other news, here's a compelling argument for stopping drivers from driving.

Cougar - don't planes fly themselves these days even auto land?

[quote=Cougar ]But driverless? We don't yet have driverless trains (the DLR aside), and they're on bloody rails. If trains need drivers, cars surely do for the forseeable.

We could have driverless trains though, the tech is certainly available. There are other reasons for it not being done - not least being that accepted levels of accidents are far lower on railways, and there are some safety advantages to having a real driver in parallel with automated safety systems (I'm fairly sure the automated systems will nowadays stop the train crashing even if the driver falls asleep).

For someone for whom driving is a means to an end sure, but I enjoy driving. To me that sounds like one of the most tedious things imaginable. Fortunately it's not going to happen, certainly in my lifetime.

I think it is going to happen a lot quicker than you think,and I think the change will be driven by cost. Once driverless technology arrives, it is going to be so much safer that manual driving will be priced off the road by the insurance costs. I'd start saving up a lot of money if you want to keep driving a car manually. I think a lot of people would much rather watch a film, read a book, or just go to sleep, anyway.

The whole concept of car use and ownership is going to change. I have no desire to own an expensive piece of hardware that sits idle 22 hours a day, if I can just call it up when I need it. Small, cheap vehicle to commute during the week (or share an intelligently pooled taxi) and a larger MPV to go on a trip with the family at the weekend.
Personally, I'm looking forward to commuting by bike (and road cycling generally) becoming even safer, and more popular. We will never get properly designed and universal cycling infrastructure in the UK, but driverless technology could skip that problem.

jimjam - Member
edhornby - Member
This daft trope keeps popping up so often ......
It's all based on a daft scenario that doesn't exist in real life,
That's because it's a thought experiment designed to inform the our thinking about the AI world we will soon be confronted by. Cars will probably be the least of out worries, but it is tangible for most people so it comes up again and again.

Thanks jimjam.

Your short post said what I was trying to (badly) to in a few long rambling posts.

Yes,a thought experiment, that's exactly it and why I think this subject is so interesting.

Not to say massively important. AI in cars is just the proving ground and a very visible one. It'll also be as much about how humans react to this massive change as about anything else. Again, that will carry over into so many other fields the mind boggles.

My single worry with AI is that I wish it were being designed by better minds. That's another debate entirely though.

My single worry with AI is that I wish it were being designed by better minds. That's another debate entirely though.

mikewsmith

Well certainly defining better is interesting.
At this stage it's really constructing a system that can interperate it's surroundings and compute the outcomes. There are some smart people and as a society we need decide some rules and be open about what choices are being made.

Yes, "better" is a bit of an obtuse way of me putting really.

As you say it's the deciding of rules and who plays a part in that that is going to be fundamental to AI.

In the long term I think AI will be either our deliverance or or demise.

I genuinely think it could be the former as long as the sometimes painful lessons are learnt along the way. Bringing a child into the world is always a painful experience.

Amazing things we live in.

I genuinely think it could be the former as long as the sometimes painful lessons are learnt along the way. Bringing a child into the world is always a painful experience.

If you wind it back to the stats I put on the front page, to hold humans to the standard people want to hold AI to, all those people will killed or seriously injured due to human decision making.

For the moral viewpoint I think Isaac Asimov managed to put the basic principles down in his 3 laws of robotics.

As for the actual implementation of driverless cars, I think we'll see a change in our road infrastructure. The network will probably have to be redesigned.

Will we need wide motorways when all traffic is moving at the same speed? Maybe just one lane with blending and exiting lanes.

However bearing in mind the power of the motoring lobbies, there may be unpleasant consequences for cyclists. I suspect one of the ways that will be used to reduce the risks will be to legislate bikes off through roads.