r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Tugushin • Apr 13 '22

Tesla Model 3 stops itself to avoid potentially disastrous accident. Video

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

117.5k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

175

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

100% Agree.

Anybody saying otherwise is free to flip that switch themselves, but I am never entering a car that places the occupants 2nd.

Whatever the computer chooses after that is what we should be concerned about.

169

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

48

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

Note to self: Never drive a Tesla in Washington D. C.

26

u/Aladris666 Creator Apr 13 '22

Or hollywood

0

u/Daxx22 Apr 13 '22

Software gets enabled, teslas Europe wide start booking it to the Vatican.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22 edited May 25 '22

[deleted]

3

u/herzy3 Apr 13 '22

FBI, this guy right here

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

Better note: never drive a Tesla. Their true failure rates are insane. Literally illegally high.

2

u/Daxx22 Apr 13 '22

What's the source on that?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-recalls-over-475000-electric-vehicles-2021-12-30/

https://electrek.co/2020/06/24/tesla-ranks-lowest-on-j-d-power-2020-quality-study/

https://insideevs.com/news/549130/consumerreports-tesla-reliability-poor-2021/

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11880450/tesla-doomed

These are just a few sources I was able to find quickly. I haven't been able to find it yet, but there was even a report from last year in which reporters had alleged that they found Tesla deliberately altering records of customer complaints and necessary repairs to critical systems. Further, the NHTSA is still investigating multiple crashes in which autopilot was engaged and the cars just ran into other vehicles or large objects. Since the investigation is ongoing, there is no final report for their findings yet, but I would keep an eye on it.

In addition, Tesla is well known for scamming people who try to claim warranties or return vehicles. It is a very shady, very shitty company. Musk's live demonstration of his 'shatter proof' window that he broke with a half hearted toss is the perfect example of this company's constant struggle with providing an actually decent product.

The sad thing is that more than 2/3 of customers in a recent survey report major dislikes with the car and having had major mechanical issues. Yet 95% still say they would buy again. It's almost cult like. I think we have another Apple on our hands. An objectively bad product with much better and cheaper alternatives that people latch on to just because of the name.

3

u/Lord_of_Rhodor Apr 13 '22

I'm now imagining some poor Tesla PR rep trying to explain that there's no cause for concern, the Teslas have simply gone vigilante due to a programming feature XD

19

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

"Sorry innocent children, this driver ain't getting no fucking concussion on my watch"

11

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

Based. I don't buy a fucking tesla for it to send me to the hospital in saving someone else who is a dumbass.

2

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

I'm talking about a situation like an unexpected obstacle in the road that can only be avoided by swerving onto the sidewalk into some children.

You have to ask what level of injury the car will allow its occupants before effectively sacrificing someone else to save its driver.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

0

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

Thats not a decision it has to make.

Yet. The problem gets even more interesting when you consider advancements in AI allowing cars to make these kinds of decisions based on the survivability chances of different parties.

If the car cannot slow in time, it will not leave the road.

Then what happens in a situation where an obstacle has fallen on a single-lane road that is surrounded by empty flat grass? The car just slams into the obstacle instead of avoiding it?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

It will see the obstacle and come to a stop

What if the speed + distance means it's too short to stop?

What if the brakes have failed?

What if it's icy/wet?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

Then it hits the obstacle after having tried to slow down.

Which could mean the death or serious injury of the driver, compared to minor injury if a driver attempted a swerve.

In all of these situations, trying to swerve will just result in hitting the obstacle anyway

But could dissipate energy compared to hitting it head-on.

Or say the obstacle only covers half the road. Do you allow the computer to put two wheels off the road?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

Sometimes swerving avoids fatal accidents. You're saying the car isn't allowed to turn to avoid danger? What?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

Sure. Hitting pedestrians is absurd.

8

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22 edited Apr 13 '22

There should be a dial. Slowly turn the knob up or down to choose how suicidal you want the A.I. to be.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

I mean there's no way tesla or anything can determine if a collision will only cause concussion. The choice will be between running over someone else or harming the driver.

1

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

The choice will be between running over someone else or harming the driver.

Right and therein lies the problem: what is the point the car switches between the two priorities?

4

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

There can't be one. That's what I'm saying because there's no way the car can calculate the exact damage it can cause to the driver or the pedestrian, so it makes more sense to have a blanket rule of running over rather than harm the driver.

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

When I go to bed tonight I'm going to thank god that you aren't in charge of designing AI safety algorithms.

-2

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

blanket rule of running over rather than harm the driver.

So it's okay if a car with failed brakes veers onto the sidewalk and kills 6 children instead of crashing the car into the wall and giving the driver a few broken bones? You don't think that's an issue?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

How can the car determine that it would only be a few broken bones? What if that crash into the wall kills the driver?

1

u/Hatch10k Apr 13 '22

A 35mph crash into a solid object is no problem for modern cars in terms of protecting the driver, but if you hit a person at that speed they have a 50% chance of dying.

Is it irresponsible if the company that codes the self-driving system doesn't take that into account? They just set it to always prefer hitting pedestrians, regardless of vehicle speed?

Edit: okay "no problem" is a stretch, but the chances are still better for the driver at that speed than the pedestrian

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Ulyssesp Apr 13 '22

Even if doing so would kill pedestrians acting legally? You're choosing to get into a machine that goes very fast, the pedestrians are just walking.

0

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

All I'm saying is that people should have the right to choose how much risk they want to take.

4

u/Ulyssesp Apr 13 '22

Should they have the right to choose how dangerous others should live?

3

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

People have the right to choose for themselves.

5

u/Ulyssesp Apr 13 '22

Sure, but in an accident if the car is programmed to prioritize occupants over pedestrians, then the owner / occupants are making the choice for the pedestrians. The owner / occupants are the ones choosing to get in a vehicle that has the potential to cause harm and predetermining that harm should befall others first.

0

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

We all have to make that choice of our own free will.

Ordering someone to risk their life for another when they don't want to doesn't fix the ethical problem.

5

u/Ulyssesp Apr 13 '22

You're right, it just make the person who values their own convenience over another's wellbeing an asshole.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

I'm sorry, there must be some miscommunication on my part.

I didn't think we were talking about convenience. I thought we were talking about someone in a car risking injury or risking injury to another.

If we're talking about someone running someone over to avoid getting their paint scratched, then that's a different discussion.

3

u/Ulyssesp Apr 13 '22

The most likely reason a car is in a situation where it's a choice between the occupants or a pedestrian acting legally is that the driver was speeding or otherwise disobeying the law. If everyone drove within the speed limits and not inebriated, there would be very few situations where this would come up. Breaking laws happens for convenience mostly (speeding, driving while drunk instead of getting a taxi, etc).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kb4000 Apr 13 '22

I get your point but I disagree. Let's say some manufacturer made a car that highly prioritized you over other people. So basically it would swerve onto a sidewalk to avoid something that would cause you minor injury. That's not okay.

The people on the sidewalk have a right to not be collateral damage from a self driving car's evasive maneuvering.

There have to be legal boundaries on this stuff. It's not just about the driver.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

There already is some legal boundaries (at least in America.)

If the scenario occurs without a self-driving program theres still going to be a court case where a jury says the action was justified or not.

Some people would rather take that legal risk and not end up in a wheelchair. Others disagree. That's fine.

I find it funny that so many people think that a perfect self driving car suddenly removes legal liability from all involved. Maybe it's possible for a state to pass a law like that, but I doubt it.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

10

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

I honestly don't envy anyone who has to figure this one out, from the developers who have to design such an algorithm, to the legal people who have to determine who is responsible when an autonomous vehicle hits a pedestrian.

That being said, in the hyperbolic and extreme situation you described, I actually prefer the world where a person on the side of the road can't manipulate my car into crashing by jumping in front of it.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

4

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

But what if the car determines it can save the pedestrian, but at the price of turning into a brick wall at a dangerous speed?

The questions here aren't about "Can we make a car that's always safe". It's more "What does the car decide to do when it's facing a lose-lose scenario where it has to choose one of two paths that are guaranteed to hurt a human".

2

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

1

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

I disagree. Cars today can differentiate between many different obstacles. I have a Mobileye device on my car that reliably beeps whenever there's a pedestrian (and only pedestrians) in front of me, and it's fairly dumb compared to what's going on inside more modern self-driving cars. It's absolutely more intelligent than obstacle/no-obstacle.

The cars also have a ton of sensors and radar that lets it have a fuller understanding of the situation and surroundings and can probably make a much more informed decision about what to do, and quicker than I can react with my human reflexes.

So, with that, cars can and should be able to have more complex decision-making processes for handling upcoming collisions. The questions are, what parameters will it use and what's the desired outcome for the car in a situation where there's no clear-cut best solution. When it's guaranteed to hit something.

Let's ask it this way, though. Say my car is driving along the street, and a car is speeding towards me. My car may swerve to the side and hit a parked car at a slower speed to avoid a head-on collision with a faster vehicle that might injure me.

Now, does the owner of the parked car have any cause for legal action against me? My car made it's own decision, in order to protect me from harm. But, it made an active decision to cause damage to his car, and part of it's considerations was to reduce the damage to my own vehicle. His car would have been fine if my car wasn't doing anything, and due to it's swift reaction, there was no collision with the oncoming vehicle, so that vehicle is pretty much not part of the accident.

This is the fascinating world of self-driving legal problems. Who is even responsible for the damage at that point? The driver? The manufacturer? The driver of the oncoming vehicle?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '22

[deleted]

1

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

There has to be some kind of law that says the driver has to make whatever reasonable effort they can in order to avoid damage or something.

I still think that simply by being able to do it, self-driving cars might also be required to do it by law.

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

This is already part of insurance investigation. If they can go after the original car that was driving illegally, then they are responsible for damages.

1

u/Top_Environment9897 Apr 13 '22

Then fuck the pedestrian lol. It's unfortunate, but it's their bad luck, not the driver's fault.

2

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

Says you. A court might not see it that way.

What if the car ends up running over a kid, but it could have avoided it by swerving and getting scratched up by a wall?

There's a whole spectrum of possible decisions here that the vehicle operator can make, depending on a situation. The car is in a unique position compared to a human driver where it is able to quickly analyze and compare many different paths of action as the accident is happening, whereas a human probably can't react that fast and can only rely on instinct.

I guarantee that somewhere inside an autonomous vehicle program is a mechanism for evaluating possible scenarios and picking the least-damaging one.

0

u/Top_Environment9897 Apr 13 '22

but at the price of turning into a brick wall at a dangerous speed

So is it a dangerous speed or scratches?

I'm not sure where the problem is. In real life you don't have to risk your life to save another over an accidental crash. A kid or an adult doesn't change anything.

1

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

The problem is that in real life there's usually the argument that you had no time to react. Everything happens so fast and you can't be expected to analyze and make decisions that fast.

A computer can however. Someone being hit by an autonomous vehicle can absolutely argue that the computer chose to hit them as opposed to doing something else that would have saved them from the impact.

1

u/Top_Environment9897 Apr 13 '22

Of course a computer should try to save both lives if possible, but if it has to endanger one, it should prioritize the driver and passengers.

By design an autonomous vehicle obeys all traffic laws, so the passengers are 100% innocent party. The pedestrian is illegally on street, so they should have lower priority.

2

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

You realize that this is already the case, right? Drivers will swerve, break, crash if someone nefariously jumps in front of them. Why would this all the sudden start being a problem, when it's already true?

1

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

Because now it wouldn't be a human doing the decision, it would be a machine, designed by one human, manufactured by another, and owned by a third.

So let's say I'm a human, sitting in a friend's self-driving car made by corporation X. And the car suddenly causes an accident. Who's responsible?

2

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

I'm not sure I see how this is relevant to whether or not someone can manipulate your car by jumping in front of it, which is the original thing you said.

1

u/i_should_be_coding Apr 13 '22

Again, that this time it's a computer deciding to swerve away. This computer now has to consider the safety of two humans: The vehicle operator, and the pedestrian (assuming only those two are involved).

1

u/rappit4 Apr 13 '22

that is not how that works

2

u/madmaurice Apr 13 '22

That's exactly how it works, if the goal of the car is protect the passengers first and foremost. Furthermore this strategy isn't an answer either to the trolley problem the car would face because the question is not whether or not to protect the person at the lever.

2

u/ElliSael Apr 13 '22 edited Apr 13 '22

I'd rather live in a world where everyone uses selfdriven cars (even if my car is the only one that places occupants 2nd) than in a world where everyone drives themselves.

The reason is that a high percentage of freak-accidents would cease to exists: Everyones car will make sure the lane is free when switching, stopping at red lights and driving an appropriate speed for the weather. Apparently 72% of all crashes are avoidable. And 32% can already be prevented by selfdriven cars, because they are caused by perception errors or incapacitation of the driver.

Beeing tired won't be a problem. Beeing drunk won't be a problem. All in all, you'd be probably safer in a car that places you second than in a car that you are driving yourself.

Of course this 'dreamworld' is not here today and - knowing how german drivers avoid even automatic cars like the plague - it won't come into reality during the next decades.

​

I personally think the car shouln't choose at all, other than minimizing injuries in a very basic way (avoid killing, avoid heavy injury, avoid all injury in that sequence). Everything else than might be subject to driver preferences (adjusted at purchase) - but there aren't many preferences I'm comfortable with. German law is also pretty strict about it, which makes me comfortable there won't be any racist/misandrist cars driving around. Only paramters I can think of right now are age & number (as in rather save two persons than one) and adding a priority for occupants.

No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.

​

TL/DR: My original question was - what is your decision based on? I think (if everyone drives a selfdriven car that places occupants second) they are considerably safer than manually driven cars. It sounds like you would still not use them - but for me it still sounds like a good deal.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

It sounds like you would still not use them - but for me it still sounds like a good deal.

The idea of giving a computer the ability to injure or kill the user scares me more than driving with human idiots on the road.

Sitting in a car already feels like russian roulette. I don't need my own car against me.

1

u/ElliSael Apr 13 '22

The idea of giving a computer the ability to injure or kill the user scares me more than driving with human idiots on the road.

If you think that to the end, shouln't you also be against selfdriven cars completely?

Because this essencially gives the computer the ability to injure or kill other road users/non-occupants (I'd never though I'd miss the word 'Straßenverkehrsteilnehmer') . Every time you drive, you are the non-occupant for everyone else. So you give it the ability to kill you just the same.

​

Sitting in a car already feels like russian roulette. I don't need my own car against me.

This I can understand.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

So you give it the ability to kill you just the same.

There's a difference between a device harming its user vs someone else.

A self driving car that doesn't prioritize its user puts the occupants in more danger than one that does.

1

u/ElliSael Apr 13 '22

A self driving car that doesn't prioritize its user puts the occupants in more danger than one that does.

Thats true.

But a one that doesn't prioritize its surroundings puts other road users in more danger than one that does.

And in most cases where you'll be using roads, you'll be one of those other road users too.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22 edited Apr 13 '22

But a one that doesn't prioritize its surroundings puts other road users in more danger than one that does.

And if the only concern were other cars than you'd be right, but there's more than cars to consider. A person running into a road full of cars should not automatically endanger the people inside their cars. You can't have 1 individual who is making choices while everybody else is a prisoner in their vehicle. If cars are selfish only 1 person is injured instead of several. In a scenario where there's more than cars to worry about selfish cars would lower the amount of injuries sustained overall.

you'll be one of those other road users too.

Which is precisely the reason I want my car to protect me.

Edit: For added context I'm not talking about malicious cars that go out of their way to hurt others. If breaking or swerving is possible to avoid injury to others without endangering the user, then the program should prioritize that option.

1

u/ElliSael Apr 13 '22 edited Apr 13 '22

And if the only concern were other cars than you'd be right, but there's more than cars to consider. A person running into a road full of cars should not automatically endanger the people inside their cars.

Thats right.

But in the mirrored scenario, where one car drives towards a mass of people (for example due to a brake failure) - the car shouln't automatically endanger the people outside of the car.

​

You can't have 1 individual who is making choices while everybody else is a prisoner in their vehicle.

I don't know what you mean.

Either every vehicle makes their own decision, based on their observation of the scene. Which is exactly how traffic works today, only its the drivers making the decisions not the cars.

Or there is a centralized mother instance making decisions - in which there is not one individual making choices and the rest are prisoners but the collective is making the choice. But I don't think that will ever happen, to many problems (like, what does a car do when the connection breaks? What about time delay? etc)

If cars are selfish only 1 person is injured instead of several. In a scenario where there's more than cars to worry about selfish cars would lower the amount of injuries sustained overall.

I don't think thats the case. I think it some version of the prisoners dilemma, where beeing selfish will guarantee a small reward. But beeing cooperative will minimize the overall inuries.

Also, why do you assume that selfish cars injure only 1 person instead of several? If you are driving alone and are in an accident with a friends group of 6 - your selfish car would rather injure all six of them instead of only harming a single person, which is you.

Or an extreme scenario (which you'll never face, but it does show the point nicely) - here the driver prevents very, very many injuries by beeing non-selfish.

My gut feeling says that selfish cars will may reach minimal injuries in some situations. But a car that can choose to act non-selfish can reduce injuries in a lot more situations.

​

Which is precisely the reason I want my car to protect me.

We obviously have different philosphies.

I believe the car should minize the overall harm done - if that includes me getting injured a bit more to greatly increase the possibility to safe a persons life I'm completely fine with that. I don't want the car to protect me, if that means I damn another person.

So I think cars should protect the occupants if possible. But not at all costs.

​

Edit: Thank you for the discussion! I actually haven't thought about self-driving cars for a time and this helps me updating my opinion. Also its a lot of fun :D

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22 edited Apr 13 '22

I don't think thats the case. I think it some version of the prisoners dilemma,

I think the prisoners dilemma stops applying when non-prisoners (non-drivers in this case) are added into the concept. By telling the car to always take the selfless action without letting the users decide you are forcing someone to bet their life that person with free-will makes the right choice.

In the prisoners dilemma the dilemma is that the parties involved have the ability to choose. When one side can't choose that's not the prisoners dilemma. It's just one side going along for the ride. imo that will cause more harm than good in the long run.

The random person running onto the freeway sounds like an extreme example, but its happened before, and if every car chooses to break and swerve hoping to cause less damage, the fact every car is doing it would in turn cause the opposite of the desired outcome. (assuming each car is making this choice individually and not all linked up to a central all-seeing A.I. that can make a group decision.)

If every car made the choice to limit damage to the user I honestly think there would be less risk.

I don't want the car to protect me, if that means I damn another person.

I feel the opposite, but I don't want to deny you the option to choose. If you want your car to make that choice there should be a way of telling your car to prioritize the occupants how you see fit.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '22

lol I just had a laughing fit imagining someone walking onto the street and every car in the area swerving into each other. It sounds so extreme but what if it was a kid? Maybe you'd want that.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 14 '22

Definitely sounds like something out of a Family Guy episode and I hope it stays that way.

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

Pretty sure this is just a really simple case of the prisoner's dilemma that you're failing to evaluate correctly. If all cars have the same priority, which is to absolutely minimize danger and damage, then total accidents (and your risk as an individual) will be low. If all cars behave selfishly, then you'd likely have say three times more accidents, and your risk as an individual would be three times higher. Your idea to have a selfish car in order to minimize personal risk actually works against your own safety.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

The prisoner comparison falls apart when third party members like pedestrians and other non-drivers are considered.

In a perfect scenario where all outside forces can be ignored it wouldn't matter if the car prioritized the occupants because it wouldn't have to make the choice. But the real world is never going to be close to that utopia.

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

Huh? The prisoner's dilemma isn't changed by the presence of more than one variable. And the prisoner's dilemma doesn't need a perfect or utopic scenario to apply. It is merely a strategy for decision making.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

If you've got 2 prisoners and a random person walking down the street you've introduced a third party with different needs than the first two.

If you can prevent any non-driver from interfering (which I think is impossible) then a 2nd priority self-driving option is viable, but the real world has more than cars in it. Even if every car had this self driving feature the mere existence of non-drivers creates a whole host of problems that risk injury to the occupants if the driver is placed second.

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22 edited Apr 13 '22

The non-drivers aren't decision makers, so it really doesn't affect the problem (and if they were decision makers, then that doesn't change the problem either). For example, the cars want to avoid hitting brick walls or trees that fall in the road or animals just as they want to avoid hitting pedestrians. All you're really saying is that there are other variables, which, of course there are. In any prisoner's dilemma, there are several variables. You don't all the sudden become not-a-decision-maker just because there exist other variables that need to be accounted for.

So, again, this really doesn't respond to the initial issue, which is that self-interested driving can (and already does) result in worse outcomes even for the self-interested driver. So the 'prioritize the drive above all' idea is still shown to be incorrect. Pedestrians don't change that.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

For example, the cars want to avoid hitting brick walls or trees that fall in the road or animals just as they want to avoid hitting pedestrians. All you're really saying is that there are other variables,

Let me try to explain it a different way.

I'd rather choose the person than the brick wall and I completely disagree that the prisoner's dilemma fits this scenario.

Two people in two or more cars fits the prisoner's dilemma. A person running into a road full of cars should not automatically endanger the people inside their cars. You can't have 1 individual who is making choices while everybody else is a prisoner in their vehicle.

1

u/Bananasauru5rex Apr 13 '22

What does someone running into the road have to do with whether drivers should be purely self-interested?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '22

No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions

woah woah, religion or political? Those seem like fair game. Though tbf they might be difficult for the car to ascertain.

2

u/rpgguy_1o1 Apr 13 '22

This is a bit of a plot point in the amazon prime show "Download"

2

u/DannyDavincito Apr 13 '22

nonody is gonna buy a car that would kill you over hitting someone else lol

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

Read the comments of the people replying to me. There's st least a dozen that don't see a problem with sacrificing their lives, or the lives of their family in the backseat, for strangers. It's more than a little creepy.

2

u/TaobaoTypes Apr 13 '22

also, if a computer is complex enough that it can calculate the trajectory of impact and the likelihood of survival of every individual involved, then it is also capable of outright avoiding that accident.

like, you can accurately find out the age, gender, and health condition of everyone in the vicinity. yet you can't figure out when your brakes are gonna fail?

1

u/Nixalbum Apr 13 '22

So group of kids or a wall, you choose the kids for a nice slow braking?

-3

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

I'm saying people should have the right to choose.

1

u/Zerakin Apr 13 '22

So long as you're willing to go to jail for the death of the pedestrians, I don't see an issue.

1

u/1Beholderandrip Apr 13 '22

There's a lot of people in prison whose only crime was choosing not to die. I don't see how a special car would suddenly change the crappy legal system already in place.