Mawsley Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 The Moral Machine - http://moralmachine.mit.edu"A new program called the Moral Machine is collecting data on how humans decide what to do in tough moral circumstances, and you can play too." Quote
Hoggs Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 The Moral Machine - http://moralmachine.mit.edu"A new program called the Moral Machine is collecting data on how humans decide what to do in tough moral circumstances, and you can help ruin their results." Fixed for you Quote
HowBowDah Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 I had this discussion way back when. It's one of the big reasons I am against self driving cars. The moral viewpoint of someone else should not be imposed on others, especially if it's me.If a failure occurs and the decision is my life or the life of a cat or dog, I'd hate for the extremist views of PETA to be the death of me. Quote
Mawsley Posted August 16, 2017 Author Posted August 16, 2017 I had this discussion way back when. It's one of the big reasons I am against self driving cars. The moral viewpoint of someone else should not be imposed on others, especially if it's me.If a failure occurs and the decision is my life or the life of a cat or dog, I'd hate for the extremist views of PETA to be the death of me. It's not "someone else" imposing their moral viewpoint and wiping you out though...it's all of us. If you bite the big one at the hands of a driverless car then you can meet your maker relaxed in the knowledge that we all thought you were the weakest link. Everybody. And, to be honest, if it's a choice between you and my two Springers then I'm afraid they are (probably) way cuter and give better licks. Which is why I'm encouraging everybody to select cats to be first in the line to be squished. Quote
Arwen Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 My basic principles of it was the car should always keep travelling straight, unless the number of human occupants inside was equal to or greater than those it would hit, in which case, drive into the wall. If it was a choice of two even numbers of groups (all human), car continues straight. If not then hit the least number of humans.It is an interesting experiment.Edit: according to that I'll spare all the old, fat low-lives! Quote
MR_W Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 I ended up middle for social value, species and gender. Which given I do value everyone the same I'd agree with.I maxed out saving more lives, quite high on uphold the law. I also slightly went towards younger than older, solves the aging population issue for the NHS.Oh and I apparently hate fat people. Quote
Guest Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Reminds me of the old joke.Why did the chicken cross the road?To help with the moral dilemmas of a driverless car. He was deemed less important that an elderly woman and consequently was run over when the driverless cars brakes failed, highlighting a need for driverless cars to have a failsafe when they go tits up. The car behind was legally allowed to retrieve the dead chicken as roadkill for its supper. Although driverless cars don't of course eat chicken.Ha ha ha. Quote
JRH Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 This is a crowdfunding way of preparing a new screen play for Death Race 2000 Quote
Bender Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 I am not fan of the jogger.Screen Shot 2017-08-16 at 13.23.33.png Ohhh thats what it meant by fit, thats not what i was thinking Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.