Sunk cost fallacy, just pull it on one person instead of doubling the potential deaths and giving up control over when it will happen.
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
831 points (97.4% liked)
Memes
45746 readers
1599 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Easy. I'd just step in front of the train.
this is not a purely theoretical question. in practice, autonomous vehicles face exactly this dilemma. or rather the manufacturers of the vehicles who have to set the specifications
I forget where it was from but years ago I found an online survey on autonomous cars and their decision making from a university. It was all about deciding to swerve or not in a collision. All kinds of difficult encounters like do you hit the barrier and kill the passenger or swerve and kill the old lady? Do you hit thin person or serve and hit the heavier person?
I've never seen a survey drill down into biases quite so deeply.
Easy. Prioritize who is saved based on social credit score.
I did this as a part of our ethics discussion.
My eventual answer was you always kill the non-driver as no one would ever buy a car that will kill them over someone else.
From what I've seen of real world examples, not "what if the car had 5 cats in it and the person on the crosswalk had a stroller full of 6 cat, swerve into a barricade?", telsa cars just release control of the autonomous controls to the person behind the wheel a few seconds before impact so the driver is fully liable.
As the famous Double Down Domino would say, "I'm doublin' down!"
So how does that killing thing work, doing it by yourself or just thinking and the person dies?
I think with this scenario it's indirectly caused by you. Either you 'press a button,' directly resulting in the death of a specific individual, or another person is given the same scenario but the button directly causes double the number of deaths if they press it.
load more comments
(1 replies)