'While split-second human decisions may affect the outcome of car accidents, driverless cars may need to be programmed to kill people in order to save laves.'

'..In a situation where a driverless car could kill a group of 10 bystanders by saving its driver or swerve and kill the driver to save the group, in theory, it could be authorised to kill its driver for the ‘greater good’.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/driverless-car...58078.html

what could possibly go wrong..?

I'll stick with older cars. There's a reason for our self preservation instinct that kicks in in those situations, I'm not big on a machine deciding that outcome.
This interferes with the natural order of things.

(10-26-2015, 07:08 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  I'll stick with older cars. There's a reason for our self preservation instinct that kicks in in those situations, I'm not big on a machine deciding that outcome.
This interferes with the natural order of things.

well what with robots and such replacing humans in every way they can think of, i think perhaps, that is the point...

they dont want 'natural order of things..' they want control of it all.

Quote:'..In a situation where a driverless car could kill a group of 10 bystanders by saving its driver or swerve and kill the driver to save the group, in theory, it could be authorised to kill its driver for the ‘greater good’.

Makes me wonder what sort of situation the driverless car would have got itself into for that to be a possible scenario. Driving too fast perhaps?

Coolchick Wrote:they dont want 'natural order of things..' they want control of it all.