Hot answers tagged

59

How could self-driving cars make ethical decisions about who to kill? It shouldn't. Self-driving cars are not moral agents. Cars fail in predictable ways. Horses fail in predictable ways. the car is heading toward a crowd of 10 people crossing the road, so it cannot stop in time, but it can avoid killing 10 people by hitting the wall (killing the ...


51

The answer to a lot of those questions depends on how the device is programmed. A computer capable of driving around and recognizing where the road goes is likely to have the ability to visually distinguish a human from an animal, whether that be based on outline, image, or size. With sufficiently sharp image recognition, it might be able to count the number ...


28

Personally, I think this might be an overhyped issue. Trolley problems only occur when the situation is optimized to prevent "3rd options". A car has brakes, does it not? "But what if the brakes don't work?" Well, then the car is not allowed to drive at all. Even in regular traffic, human operators are taught that your speed should be limited as such that ...


14

This is the well known Trolley Problem. As Ben N said, people disagree on the right course of action for trolley problem scenarios, but it should be noted that with self-driving cars, reliability is so high that these scenarios are really unlikely. So, not much effort will be put into the problems you are describing, at least in the short term.


13

In the real world, decisions will be made based on the law, and as noted over on Law.SE, the law generally favors inaction over action.


9

The article Children Beating Up Robot Inspires New Escape Maneuver System is based on two research papers about an experiment in a Japanese mall that led to unsupervised children attacking robots. The research paper you're interested in is Escaping from Children’s Abuse of Social Robots. In that research paper, researchers were able to program the robots to ...


8

For a driverless car that is designed by a single entity, the best way for it to make decisions about whom to kill is by estimating and minimizing the probable liability. It doesn't need to absolutely correctly identify all the potential victims in the area to have a defense for its decision, only to identify them as well as a human could be expected to. ...


8

“This moral question of whom to save: 99 percent of our engineering work is to prevent these situations from happening at all.” —Christoph von Hugo, Mercedes-Benz This quote is from an article titled Self-Driving Mercedes-Benzes Will Prioritize Occupant Safety over Pedestrians published OCTOBER 7, 2016 BY MICHAEL TAYLOR, retrieved 08 Nov 2016. Here's ...


7

There is much discussion in philosophy about inner language and the ability to perceive pain (see Pain in philosophy article). Your question is in the area of philosophy and not science. If you define emotion as some state then you can construct simple automata with two states (emotion vs no-emotion). It can be a very complicated state with degrees of truth (...


7

Right and wrong only exist relative to some goal or purpose. To make a machine do more right than wrong, relative to human goals, one should minimize the surface area of the machine's purpose. Doing that minimizes the intrinsic behavior of the AI, which enables us to reason about the right and wrong behaviors of the AI, relative to human purposes. Horses ...


6

Firstly, an AGI could conceivably exhibit all of the observable properties of intelligence without being conscious. Although that may seem counter-intuitive, at present we have no physical theory that allows us to detect consciousness (philosophically speaking, a 'Zombie' is indistinguishable from a non-Zombie - see the writing of Daniel Dennett and David ...


6

It is certainly possible for AI to theoretically feel emotion. There are, according to Murray Shanahan's book The Technological Singularity, two primary forms of AI: 1) Human based AI - achieved through processes such as whole brain emulation, the functioning of human based AI would likely be indistinguishable from that of the human brain, and, as a ...


6

AI is already connected with cognitive psychology - there are dozens of AIs right this minute attempting to predict things like which Facebook posts you will like, and which ads you are most likely to click on. In other words, they are trying to predict how you think. For more detailed info on this AI/cognitive science connection, there is some suggested ...


6

I suggest you look at all the ways we have tried to stop people from abusing OTHER PEOPLE. There is no ethical grey area here - everyone is clear that this is wrong. And yet people are murdered, raped, and assaulted in their millions every day. When we solve this problem with regard to human victims, the resulting solution will most likely work just fine ...


5

Assuming an AI was built out of a mechanical husk, mirroring the human brain exactly; complete with chemical signals and all. An AI should theoretically be capable of feeling/processing emotions.


5

Frankly I think this issue (the Trolley Problem) is inherently overcomplicated, since the real world solution is likely to be pretty straightforward. Like a human driver, an AI driver will be programmed to act at all times in a generically ethical way, always choosing the course of action that does no harm, or the least harm possible. If an AI driver ...


5

They shouldn't. People should. People cannot put the responsibilities of ethical decisions into the hands of computers. It is our responsibility as computer scientists/AI experts to program decisions for computers to make. Will human casualties still exist from this? Of course, they will--- people are not perfect and neither are programs. There is an ...


5

How could self-driving cars make ethical decisions about who to kill? By managing legal liability and consumer safety. A car that offers the consumer safety is going to be a car that is bought by said consumers. Companies do not want to be liable for killing their customers nor do they want to sell a product that gets the user in legal predicaments. Legal ...


5

Algorithms can be racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted. When we feed them data produced by systems that are biased against groups of people, the algorithm will learn to behave that way. We're used to garbage in garbage out, now we have to worry about racism in racism out. See: Facial Recognition Is Accurate, if You’re a White Guy Rise of the Racist Robots –...


4

I think that in most cases the car would default to reducing speed as a main option, rather than steering toward or away from a specific choice. As others have mentioned, having settings related to ethics is just a bad idea. What happens if two cars that are programmed with opposite ethical settings and are about to collide? The cars could potentially have a ...


4

Algorithms can learn to lie: SEE: Robots Evolve to Deceive (MIT Tech Review, 2007) Robots 'Evolve' the Ability to Deceive (MIT Tech Review, 2009) Evolving Robots Learn To Lie To Each Other (Popsci, 2009) Deception as a strategy has been observed in animal populations: Do Animals "Lie"? Yes, Even to Their Own Kind, Biologist Says (Rochester University, ...


4

One way to criticize the study could be to attack the data on which the study is based on. An image on a social network is not "neutral" (those are not ID photo) and certainly not images from a dating website (from which the data of the study come from). For example as a homosexual / heterosexual person you will perhaps put forward different attributes on ...


4

I'm going to refer you to one of my favorite AI philosophers, Phillip K. Dick, who thought deeply on this subject and wrote about in some detail in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Essentially, replicants (artificial humans) had a design flaw--they lacked empathy. This flaw was allowed to persist because it had a useful side-effect in that replicants ...


4

We aren't putting general intelligence on the assembly line The machines you're talking about (those who could be more 'intelligent' than a human) are both a long way off and over kill for an assembly line. Any AI on an assembly line may be brilliantly suited to deciding where and when to perform tasks, which products aren't up to standard and so on...but ...


3

I have considered much of the responses here, and I would suggest that most people here have missed the point when answering the question about emotions. The problems is, scientists keep looking for a single solution as to what emotions are. This is akin to looking for a single shape that will fit all different shaped slots. Also, what is ignored is that ...


3

I think there would not be a way to edit such ethics settings in a car. But hey, if cell phones can be rooted, why not cars? I imagine there'll be Linux builds in the future for specific models that will let you do whatever you want. As for who'll make such decisions, it'll be much like privacy issues of today. There'll be a tug-of war on the blanket by the ...


3

The only sensible choice is to use predictable behaviour. So in the people in front of the car scenario: First the car hits the brakes, at the same time honks the horn, and stays on course. The people then have a chance to jump out of the way leading to zero people being killed. Also with full brakes (going from 50km per hour to zero is less than 3 car ...


3

One way of illustrating the deficiencies of many of our current approaches at once is to consider how well it is possible to represent (equivalently, learn) commonsense knowledge. In this area, the Winograd Schema Challenge has been proposed by Levesque, in which each problem is given as input natural language text containing an ambiguous pronoun: Babar ...


3

Yes, it is possible, and has actually been done in the past. The University of Antwerp created a bot to answer questions (this is the technical report). It focused on the git tag only though (even though it did answer one mysql question). Its accuracy was pretty good, and the bots in the tests did earn some reputation. So I assume it is possible. But do ...


3

Many large deployments of AI have carefully engineered solutions to problems (ie self driving cars). In these systems, it is important to have discussions about how these systems should react in morally ambiguous situations. Having an agent react "appropriately" sounds similar to the Turing test in that there is a "pass/fail" condition. This leads me to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible