Should driverless cars be programmed to kill you?

Adder wrote:

Goken wrote: I don't like the idea of self driving cars. I'm a bit of a control freak and I don't like the idea of a program being responsible for my transportation and my safety.

It's the next step to getting hover cars :lol:

Can you imagine the carnage with manually flown flying cars OMG :side:

If driverless cars will get us closer to hover cars, then count me in. I always have been an off-road kinda guy.

The piece missing from the equation here is the role that the actual roads could also play in this. Driverless cars don't have to be unleashed on every side street, alley, backroad, turnpike and freeway. I imagine that sensors could be installed over highways or lanes meant specifically for driverless cars similar to the ones used on toll roads now that read transmitters present in the vehicle. The vehicle can be programmed to only allow driverless operation when on certain roads or in certain lanes where these transmitters are present, but still be manually operated everywhere else. If we keep the driverless operation to roads with little or no pedestrian traffic it would greatly mitigate the risk of these moral dilemmas.

Since these cars sense each other and set proper speeds and distances based on that information, we'd basically be turning the 'driverless car lane' into a train made of individual vehicles.

I see my morning commute as manually driving my car onto the interstate, entering the proper lane, then putting it on 'autopilot' and reading a book or drinking my tea. When it's time to get off the interstate, I take over again. It could be a glorified version of cruise control.

It would be especially helpful if it tied into the GPS navigation and warned you when your exit was coming so I could wake up from a nap and put it back into manual mode in a timely manner. :laugh:

Sorry for the derail, but on flying cars I found an electric helo with good engine redundancy, simple controls lets driver focus on nav and traffic avoidance;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazFiIhwAEs

If they could fold that rotor assembly they could be parked on rooftops next to each other under a landing/launch platform, for commercial buildings.
:lol:

While you can argue the fallacies of tech....I have seen more than enough fallacy in humans driving. Drunk driving, road rage, texting while driving, simply not paying attention, ,people who are way to old to have a license,etc,etc.

I can't imagine it would be much worse actually.

I always wonder if people simply don't like change much when these things come about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU3qfDtWFmk

I have seen what the Tesla cars do with such beginnings of technology a d I have to say, I see little to be so negative about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iwfNs8j2FI

i didn't read all the posts...but driverless cars come with a major risk...hackers can access them....it was already proven with a new jeep grand cherokee, a hacker accessed the jeep's computer through it's onstar thingy or whatever chrysler uses, and the hacker was able to control the radio/ac/electronics and was even able to shut the vehicle down while it was being driven...the driver had no control over the vehicle once it was shut down...

just something to think about...

edit: this was done with knowledge as a means of proving that it was possible...the driver and hacker were demonstrating the vulnerability "smart" vehicles have...

to answer the question posed by OP

imo, the car should be programmed to protect the driver - it should be a personal safety vehicle foremost (a whole new angle on the idea of "product loyalty" lol; in future, the products are loyal to YOU!), especially in a circumstance where an outside agent was violating procedure in a way that put lives at risk

as for self driving cars in general

i do not want to own a vehicle if the control of that vehicle can be forcibly taken away from me

for one thing, i imagine a good way to end the revolution would be to simply lock suspicious people in their own cars and remote-drive them to the internment camp

other than the issue of control being taken against our own will or interests, i think theyre a great idea

once the parameters have been set, computers are more capable and less fallible at acting within those parameters than humans are

LOL I have to say this went in some interesting directions! While the question I proposed was designed to be a moral one many went off in a terminator/mr-robot/blade runner direction. Thanks for the responses.

As for the question I would tend to agree with what seems to be the consensus here. If a driverless car is faced with a moral decision such as this it should protect the driver first and any outside obstacles secondary. So that means if a pedestrian stepped in front of a car and the car could not avoid the collision it should not be programmed to swerve into traffic or off a cliff etc to protect the pedestrian.

I think in order to clearly assess this situation we need to put ourselves in the role of not only the driver but the pedestrian as well. If you made a mistake and stepped in front of a moving vehicle would you want that vehicle to be programmed to swerve and kill its occupants to protect you? Now I'm sure some would say YES! But objectively speaking if you made that mistake you should take responsibility for that mistake and accept the consequences vs letting the car occupants pay for it.

So in the end I don't think cars should be programmed to swerve to avoid pedestrians or other such potential situations, (say a pregnant woman etc) even if there is a likely hood that more could be killed outside the car vs inside.

I think ultimately, the car will make the best possible choice based on the variables, and given its ability to think not only objectively, but faster than a human, it will be more than likely better than a persons choice with slower reflexes and OODA loop.

It is more than likely the person in the car will be safer regardless of choice, given airbags, seat belts, and whatever technology comes up with in the meantime.

Something like that foam from "Demolition Man", which had the option of self drive and not actually.

It will decide whether to swerve, or not, or what have you, based on the a lot of high level math in a few seconds to make the best possible outcome.

You see, the car will not make a "moral decision" at all.

This clickbait-headline-as-thread-title makes it sound more like the question is about whether driverless cars will be programmed to immediately kill their inhabitant, as if we live in some bizarre dystopia where that is the sensible solution for population control. I realize it's taken from the linked clickbait article, but c'mon, surely you could have done better than that, given the question is really far more nuanced than that.