The Coming Zombie Robot Driving Apocalypse of You

Generali

Should A Robot Sacrifice Your Life To Save Two?

Your robot, the one you paid good money for, has chosen to kill you. Better that, its collision-response algorithms decided, than a high-speed, head-on collision with a smaller, non-robotic compact. There were two people in that car, to your one. The math couldn’t be simpler.

http://telezkope.com/Politics/Politics/1620822/should-a-robot-sacrifice-your-life-to-save-two


Well should it? Should the fact that you've paid good money for a robot mean it should value your life more highly than another's? If 2 people aren't worth you then what about a bus load of pensioners or of kids or The Cabinet?


Should your robot be trying to save your life regardless?

lostinrates

Interesting.

Of course, people already consider safety in buying a car, including making choices of vehicle that's mean they are likely to be ok over others in a collision with them.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

....Should your robot be trying to save your life regardless?

That's it. I'm not buying a bl00dy robot unless I can write my own first law.

lukeh23

Interesting, but I am not sure this should be in 'Debate House Prices & the Economy'

globalds

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The Robot would not kill you if it obeys the rules

michaels

And of course we have all seen how upset Will Smith was in I robot cos the robot saved him and not the child.

What you don't know is that, knowing the programming of your robot, I deliberately ... swerved into your lane knowing that your robot would drive you off the road rather than crashing in to me and my partner....

Generali

globalds wrote: »

The Robot would not kill you if it obeys the rules

That's fiction.

globalds

Generali wrote: »

That's fiction.

You might die .. I did not say that might not happen ..But the robot would not kill you ..just not be as good as it hoped...But it would always pick an option that gave a chance of everyone being alive after the dust settled.

I have a feeling this is a real human centric question ..reminds me of that ticking bomb scenario and torture.
I think robots would have lots of pre requisites that would not let them get into the kind of situation dumb humans do when they have to make one or the other choices.
Put bluntly. If the robot has enough information to know the occupants of the other vehicle are more valuable than the occupants in it's own ..Then it would have the power to ask the other vehicle to assist in a solution.

sabretoothtigger

Asimov foresaw satellites though, could be he has something though I dont think he knew programming especially

At least currently this scenario wont occur. The ECU or CPU or whatever logic drives the superior response of the car wont recognise the other car as having greater worth or less.

It takes some of the most powerful computers available to visually recognise a box in its 3D form and distinguish it from other shapes. The intent to find number of passengers would have to be a deliberate direction taken by the computers creator.
He'd have to spend alot of effort to allow it to distinguish reliably especially in a short period of rapid movement with window reflections. Also it presumes a large amount of control when the computer is usually providing negative feedback but not really in control or even aware of factors. ABS can in effect control a slide as it engages each brake separately itself but it doesnt know to coordinate overall anything else but the speed of the wheels
Computers are absolute and all these factors are fuzzy

I see no great advantage in this question of opposing passengers, better to focus on the materials hit and also the shape or possible deflection. If theres a choice between a concrete wall and a crash barrier, do your best to hit the barrier; as it deflects, distributes force over time where as the wall causes your internal organs to smash on the inside of your own rib cage.
I dont think hitting the other car is the easy option, the barrier is still better
I'd rate Asimov's rules as more realistic over this bad choice scenario

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WH4F7J7AAFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

antrobus

globalds wrote: »

The Robot would not kill you if it obeys the rules

I'm assuming that the original article was based on the premise that the application of the first law "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" would mean that a robot, faced with a choice between (a) allowing two people to die or (b) allowing one person to die, would pick option (b) every time.

Hence my response. I'm going to make sure that any bl00dy robot that I buy has a first law that gives me priority over everyone else.

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Asimov foresaw satellites though,

No, that was Arthur C Clarke.

Same point though. Just because it's fiction, it doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea. I strongly suspect that if anyone ever gets around to producing anything close to a sentient robot, it will end up with being programmed with something very close to the Laws of Robotics.

princeofpounds

Arthur C Clarke.

It was actually the geostationary satellite orbit, if we are being really pedantic ;-)