Skip to main content

No, we , won't need to build moral decision making into an SDV.

The last few years as the layman media has cottoned on to the previously silent revolution happening in self driving car technology since 2003 and DARPA's "grand challenges", we've seen lots of introduction of arguments expressing the necessity of ethics and philosophy to help deal with supposedly dangerous ramifications of a cars that drive themselves. Namely issues like what is known as the trolly problem. I'll be blunt, there is no need to address any moral dilemma at all.

Self Driving cars don't need to be that intelligent, all they need to do is know and relentlessly follow the law.

The laws work to define what is legal *action* given possible scenarios with other cars and pedestrians...acting within those laws 100% means one is not subject to violating them....so knowing the laws and behaving to their letter ....*even if that means killing people* will get you free of at least the litigation.

See China.

In China a backward insurance payout philosophy coupled to laws that enforce it, has it so that in some cases it is better that a struck pedestrian is killed than just hit...so in that nation car drivers often make sure that if they do hit any one they kill them to be free of the associated potential litigation if they survive.

I'm not making this up, read:


So powerful is LAW over moral machinations in this regard, here in the west where the laws are not so anti Pedestrian they are still just as inflexible to being retroactively gamed.

Remember what Kaitlin Jenner did, thousands of law abiding citizens hit and kill pedestrians on the roadways every year and get away with it scott free....why ? Because they were found to be following the law as the incidents unfolded and that is all one needs...so you don't teach the car to swerve to avoid person a when group b is on the detour, you teach it to follow the law...if it swerves and stays on the road but kills the single pedestrian it followed the law and is not responsible. If it stays lane forward and kills the group, it still followed the law and is not responsible.

Of course it should make an effort to reduce speed in either circumstance to demonstrate that it *tried* (not doing this could be seen as culpability to commit the dangerous act) but that doesn't require morals....just a simple response heuristic to slow down when objects present immediately ahead of the car and there is no ability to turn .... SDV's already do this simple heuristic very well and far far faster and more accurately than any human is capable of.



Now can we stop sharing these silly moral argument articles?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.html

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Highly targeted Cpg vaccine immunotherapy for a range of cancer

Significance?


This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:

So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator​ T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.

This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…