Ethics of Self-Driving cars

[PsYcHo]

I recently listened to a NPR broadcast about self driving cars, and they brought up an interesting moral debate.
(Yes, the oft drunk Libertarian listens to NPR. )

A main question they brought up was how the AI should react when an accident was inevitable. (Likely due to a non-AI equipped car)

If you were in your AI car, and someone did something that would cause your car to take extreme evasive maneuvers, and there were large amounts of pedestrians nearby, should the car

A- Do the best to save the driver, even if it means running over pedestrians,

B- Do the best to cause the least amount of harm, avoiding the pedestrians by running into a brick wall killing the occupant.?

I know the main premise for this forum is reduction of harm, and I tend to side with that, but for this situation there is a question to be asked... If the self driving car puts reduction of harm as it's default, (Kill the driver to avoid killing more pedestrians) how many people would purchase the car?

In my typical "no solid rules" fashion, I'd like to hear thoughts on this.

[brimstoneSalad]

Easy: put a switch in the car and let people decide for themselves.

Like you said, we want to maximize the number of people using self driving cars, and it's much more likely more people die from people avoiding the technology than from the cars themselves protecting the driver above all else.

Now here's an interesting question: when you buy the car, which state should the switch be in by default?

If it's in the self-sacrifice state, then a lot of people might not switch it to the self-protection state, because they'd feel like bad people for doing it... but then they might just not buy the car at all because they know that and they don't want to switch the switch.

[Red]

Now here's an interesting question: when you buy the car, which state should the switch be in by default?

Well, what if the car doesn't have an option chosen, and before you start using it, you have to choose? It'd definitely give us a sense of morality in the general populace either way, I think. Maybe.

However, if the car is carrying an important person, such as the President, the cars made will be locked on the 'Kill other motherfuckers in an instance of danger.'

[esquizofrenico]

Another interesting idea is if the algorithm should take into account responsibility. Should the car throw me out of the road to save a group of pedestrians that were jaywalking? Although this is more theoretical, it is not easy to know when a pedestrian is jaywalking.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

B due to my utilitarian beliefs. As well as that, the person buying the car should be aware of this and can make a free choice whether to buy the car or not. So they are aware that they may be killed. However, the pedestrians have no choice, so it would be very unfair to have option A forced on them.

I think self-driving cars are stupid though and we should be investing more money into public transport instead of in these ridiculous things.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

However, if the car is carrying an important person, such as the President, the cars made will be locked on the 'Kill other motherfuckers in an instance of danger.'

I would support that if you, Red, are the President in question. However, if the President is Orange Man, the car should be made to automatically self-destruct the moment he enters.

[PsYcHo]

However, if the President is Orange Man, the car should be made to automatically self-destruct the moment he enters.

Just a random reminder for all members, please don't (even in jest) suggest any actions that would cause several governmental agencies to focus on us. (Or at the very least, include a disclaimer saying how you are just joking.)

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

However, if the President is Orange Man, the car should be made to automatically self-destruct the moment he enters.

Just a random reminder for all members, please don't (even in jest) suggest any actions that would cause several governmental agencies to focus on us. (Or at the very least, include a disclaimer saying how you are just joking.)

I thought it obvious that I was joking but okay and sorry.

[Jamie in Chile]

I think it should work to reduce harm overall.

I also think in practice these difficult decisions will not happen very often.

Pedestrians don't have a crumple zone to protect them, so I would err on the side of not hitting pedestrians.