Who Would You Choose to Save?
A self-driving car carrying a family of four on a rural two-lane highway spots a bouncing ball ahead. As the vehicle approaches a child runs out to retrieve the ball. Should the car risk its passengers' lives by swerving to the side--where the edge of the road meets a steep cliff? Or should the car continue on its path, ensuring its passengers' safety at the child's expense? This scenario and many others pose moral and ethical dilemmas that carmakers, car buyers and regulators must address before vehicles should be given full autonomy, according to a study published Thursday in Science.
Ofc. "Who cares about some random kid? Save me!" People are great.
By min | June 28, 2016, 9:45 AM | Science
Save a kid who couldn't even hold onto their ball? Nope! Why is any kid playing next to a huge cliff? What's the real story here? If robot cars want to kill kids instead of me, who am I to stop them?
The real answer is turbo boost to leap over the ball, the kid, the cliff, a hobo, etc, and everyone is safe and happy.
The answer is always turbo boost.
The words Turbo Boost didn't evoke the memories of KITT jumping over an obstacle but of Turbo Teen and that awful disturbing intro of him turning into a car. Why did the animators do that? WHY?!
what if he wore different clothes? would they still transform?
Good lord. That's like a David Cronenberg nightmare right there. Why is he not shrieking in pain and horror during the transformation scene...
RE: The situation where a high-speed car hits either a child who runs into the road or crashes into some barrier (trees; pylons; hillside; etc.): I would choose to save myself, rather the random child.
This is not only because I know and love myself, but also because I've a unique role in the betterment of society.* On the contrary, the child might grow up to be a menace to society, in which case his or her death would provide a net public utility or "positive externality."
It's ultimately a matter of certain probability versus less-than-certain probability!
* This duty is to persuade young adults it is generally more cost-effective financially and emotionally to complete a 2-year vocational-technical program than it is to earn a 4-year liberal arts degree.
For one, there are simply more jobs that require an associate's or briefer credential than jobs that require more intensive credentials, in which case "bigger" (B.S. vs. A.S.) -isn't- better due to the opportunity cost (esp. in lost work hours) of earning that fancier degree.
For another, it is kind of silly to prepare for jobs that "don't yet exist" (and might -never- exist); yet, that is precisely the "value" that liberal arts colleges have been attempting to market. (And less effectively, at that, seeing how the UW-SAGLA contest -- enacted for that very purpose -- ended after an 11-year run.)