Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Aug 2017 19:08 UTC
In the News

Some light weekend reading: ethical guidelines for self-driving cars, as proposed by an ethics commission of the German government.

The technological developments are forcing government and society to reflect on the emerging changes. The decision that has to be taken is whether the licensing of automated driving systems is ethically justifiable or possibly even imperative. If these systems are licensed - and it is already apparent that this is happening at international level - everything hinges on the conditions in which they are used and the way in which they are designed. At the fundamental level, it all comes down to the following question. How much dependence on technologically complex systems - which in the future will be based on artificial intelligence, possibly with machine learning capabilities - are we willing to accept in order to achieve, in return, more safety, mobility and convenience? What precautions need to be taken to ensure controllability, transparency and data autonomy? What technological development guidelines are required to ensure that we do not blur the contours of a human society that places individuals, their freedom of development, their physical and intellectual integrity and their entitlement to social respect at the heart of its legal regime?

Cars are legalised murder weapons, and the car is probably one of the deadliest inventions of mankind. Self-driving cars, therefore, open up a whole Pandora's box oef ethical dilemmas, and it only makes sense for governments and lawmakers to start addressing these.

Beyond the ethics related to life and death, though, there are also simpler, more banal ethical considerations. What if, in the hunger for more profits, a car maker makes a deal with McDonalds, and tweaks its self-driving car software just a tad bit so that it drives customers past McDonalds more often, even if it increases total travel time? What if a car maker makes similar deals with major chains like Target, Walmart, and Whole Foods, so that smaller chains or independent stores don't even show up when you say "take me to the nearest place that sells X"? Is that something we should allow?

Should we even allow self-driving car software to be closed-source to begin with? Again - cars are legal murder weapons, and do we really trust car manufacturers enough not to cut corners when developing self-driving car software to meet deadlines or due to bad management or underpaid developers? Shouldn't all this development and all this code be out there for the world to see?

Interesting times ahead.

Thread beginning with comment 648386
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Murder weapon?
by grat on Tue 29th Aug 2017 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Murder weapon?"
grat
Member since:
2006-02-02

The use of the word "murder" may be hyperbole, since death by car usually isn't on purpose.


MAY be hyperbole? It is absolutely, one hundred percent, hyperbole.

Anything capable of transferring kinetic energy is capable of being used as a weapon... but apparently, the philosophy here is "don't blame the people who make poor choices while operating the vehicle, blame the vehicle".

By extension, Thom just called about a billion people attempted murderers-- apparently nuclear weapons, gunpowder, alcohol and tobacco aren't that dangerous compared with motorized transportation in the hands of an idiot.

Reminds me of a Frank Lloyd Wright quote on dangerous weapons. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Murder weapon?
by jaylaa on Tue 29th Aug 2017 12:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Murder weapon?"
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

You're really missing the point. No one is trying to take away the blame from the person behind the wheel. Or demonize cars.

The point is a criticism of society. Which is that a person can kill another human being with a car and, even if they are found to be at fault, they receive a very light punishment in comparison to how they would be treated if they killed someone in just about any other manner.

You name me one single method of killing multiple people where the punishment can be as light as probation, fines and loss of drivers' license.

Edited 2017-08-29 12:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Murder weapon?
by dionicio on Tue 29th Aug 2017 14:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Murder weapon?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

The evil index of the tool... A great amount of resources go to UN-demonizing what essentially is evil.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Murder weapon?
by dionicio on Tue 29th Aug 2017 14:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Murder weapon?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Lorries are quickly falling in the evil index. Bikes have an extremely low evil index.

Edited 2017-08-29 14:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Murder weapon?
by grat on Tue 29th Aug 2017 17:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Murder weapon?"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

You name me one single method of killing multiple people where the punishment can be as light as probation, fines and loss of drivers' license.


That's a problem with the legal system, not the car, called in the OP "one of the deadliest inventions of mankind."

But if you really want to talk death-by-stupidity, try most "modern" healthcare systems.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Murder weapon?
by dionicio on Thu 31st Aug 2017 20:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Murder weapon?"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

“I don’t want to ruin someone else’s life either. So what do you do with that? There again if you let it go, you’ve demonstrated that someone can kill someone else with a car and you can get away with it, which is historically, statistically, what seems to be happening.”

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/31/chris-boardman-...

Not the same: Stealing twenty bucks with a Bank, than with a knife. You'll get a small close call at the wrist, with the former.

Edited 2017-08-31 20:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2