No, in the states. I loved Kelvin Mace. The art style, the black humor, and was disappointed it didn't continue. My other favorite from that era was another short-lived title, Stig''s Inferno.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Trolley Problem with FSD 12?
- Thread starter johnmodely
- Start date
bradtem
Robocar consultant
You will find all the issues of Stig's on my web site -- enjoy
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
Reviving this topic, there was a question in today's Shareholder's Meeting Q&A about how Elon feels about the inevitability of FSD causing occasional injuries or deaths. Elon's answer was essentially that as long as the total number of deaths is decreasing, it's worth doing.
It occurred to me that this is exactly a Trolley Problem, writ large. If there are 30,000 auto deaths a year in the US, and if FSD were to become statistically twice as safe as human drivers, then deploying FSD universally could reduce the death count to 15,000, but these new casualties would be 15,000 different people, all killed by FSD. (The only potential difference is that you wouldn't know in advance who the exact people are; the 30k you'd save, or the 15k you'd kill. Does that matter?)
Elon is currently at the switch. At what point does it become ethical to flip it? Would it be ethical if he only had 90% confidence that it would decrease the total number of deaths? 99%?
Anyway, interesting food for thought!
It occurred to me that this is exactly a Trolley Problem, writ large. If there are 30,000 auto deaths a year in the US, and if FSD were to become statistically twice as safe as human drivers, then deploying FSD universally could reduce the death count to 15,000, but these new casualties would be 15,000 different people, all killed by FSD. (The only potential difference is that you wouldn't know in advance who the exact people are; the 30k you'd save, or the 15k you'd kill. Does that matter?)
Elon is currently at the switch. At what point does it become ethical to flip it? Would it be ethical if he only had 90% confidence that it would decrease the total number of deaths? 99%?
Anyway, interesting food for thought!
Had this philosophical discussion here a few times. Why is it more acceptable if a human kills your loved one in an accident vs a computer?
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
But you can sue the company behind it, and usually for more money
P90D
Member
If a human driver makes the trolley decision and swerves to take out a few pedestrians instead of a bus stop full of school kids, they're still going to prison for manslaughter if they caused the accident. "Why didn't you crash into the tree and risk killing only yourself? Oh, that option didn't come to mind, the self sacrifice given it's your car and your problem, not theirs?"
If Tesla (with 100% liability as the driver) makes the same decision through FSD, they'll be fined pennies, asked to make upgrades or suspend operations, the stock price will falter. Like GM cruise, they'll deal with the "glitch" and be back on the road in a few months.
Either way, the "accident" can almost always be avoided even if that fork in the road of fate is seemingly too far before the actual event. "Why did you drive on those old tires on a rainy day? Your necessity outweighs the necessities of others?"
As a society, we "trust" young teenagers to take the family rattle trap to joust with oncoming traffic at 100+ mph closing speeds, or within inches of parked cars and crowded sidewalks, taking unprotected left turns and driving in rain or squinting into the setting sun after that beer they're not allowed to drink in the first place. They kill us by the thousands in the same way. We put up with it. It's part of the deal. Pharmaceutical companies profit from drugs that don't work and kill hundreds of thousands of us in the same way every year. But we don't even get to vote on it or treat it as a policy issue for the next Presidential election … we'll be distracted by the terror of AI, the fear of foreigners, the fear of just about anything except the big stuff.
FSD is still statistically crude and unsafe, but with some simple limitations (no left turns, no two-way stop intersections, clear weather, etc. it is far safer than our known unsafe drivers.
Locally, in Silicon Valley, the week before Cinco de Mayo, the county operated sobriety checkpoints. The statistics were horrifying. 50% of drivers were unlicensed, uninsured, or both. 25% of drivers were drunk. On an unremarkable weekday.
So, no, I'm not in a cold sweat panic about FSD, but I hope it starts out with the kind of limitations I described, otherwise the nannies and the hysterical types will use the stupidity we've already seen from FSD users to delay and defeat the progress that's long overdue.
If Tesla (with 100% liability as the driver) makes the same decision through FSD, they'll be fined pennies, asked to make upgrades or suspend operations, the stock price will falter. Like GM cruise, they'll deal with the "glitch" and be back on the road in a few months.
Either way, the "accident" can almost always be avoided even if that fork in the road of fate is seemingly too far before the actual event. "Why did you drive on those old tires on a rainy day? Your necessity outweighs the necessities of others?"
As a society, we "trust" young teenagers to take the family rattle trap to joust with oncoming traffic at 100+ mph closing speeds, or within inches of parked cars and crowded sidewalks, taking unprotected left turns and driving in rain or squinting into the setting sun after that beer they're not allowed to drink in the first place. They kill us by the thousands in the same way. We put up with it. It's part of the deal. Pharmaceutical companies profit from drugs that don't work and kill hundreds of thousands of us in the same way every year. But we don't even get to vote on it or treat it as a policy issue for the next Presidential election … we'll be distracted by the terror of AI, the fear of foreigners, the fear of just about anything except the big stuff.
FSD is still statistically crude and unsafe, but with some simple limitations (no left turns, no two-way stop intersections, clear weather, etc. it is far safer than our known unsafe drivers.
Locally, in Silicon Valley, the week before Cinco de Mayo, the county operated sobriety checkpoints. The statistics were horrifying. 50% of drivers were unlicensed, uninsured, or both. 25% of drivers were drunk. On an unremarkable weekday.
So, no, I'm not in a cold sweat panic about FSD, but I hope it starts out with the kind of limitations I described, otherwise the nannies and the hysterical types will use the stupidity we've already seen from FSD users to delay and defeat the progress that's long overdue.
This is something that has been cropping up in the dashcam videos on YouTube. That drivers lack insurance and sometimes even licenses. My jaw dropped the first time I heard that, but my heritage is largely German.
How can you have a working society if people just ignore the rules? Especially for something that important?
P90D
Member
The news of 50% uninsured (!) caught my attention. The idea of 25% of drivers drunk (and stupid enough to drive into a sobriety checkpoint …) goes towards explaining the standard of driving we see on the road every day … and maybe the road rage.
Conversely, if 25% of drivers are drunk, clearly drink-driving is not leading to accidents because on 10% of accidents involve drunk drivers and that doesn't mean that the booze caused the accident, or even contributed (i.e. slow reflexes, poor judgement) just that a driver was charged with DUI at the scene of an accident. e.g. someone crashed into a car being driven by someone found to be intoxicated.
I had to send the news to everyone I know … it's just absurd that there's even such a thing as "uninsured motorist" on an auto insurance policy … do I need to take out a policy for "person shooting gun" insurance?
Insurance is a government sanctioned racket – it costs far too much, the underwriters are far too profitable (indicating they're selling fear of future risk at overinflated premiums) and it never works as completely as might reasonably be expected. Insurance should be a government service. From auto to employers and medical, none of these essential services should be a for-profit racket with effectively unregulated prices that do not reflect supply and demand, and the "competitors" are in tacit collusion because they the same intentions to exploit a captive market.
"ok, sir, thank you for chatting in on our app today, I understand you've been shot, you've fallen and hurt your wrist, we can pay for the wrist brace, you're covered for 'slip and fall', but you don't have 'bullet' insurance so the hole in your lung is not covered by your "person shooting gun" policy, and good luck with the collapsed lung, I'll be sure to note that hole as a pre-existing condition if you decide to add the 'bullet' coverage. Have a great day! …"
The statistics from 2019 say that 12.6% of motorists are uninsured, and I saw another statistic that 3% of motorists operate without a valid license (but are involved in 18% of fatal accidents). That checkpoint was probably set up in a place frequented by people illegally in the country. They can get their hands on a car, but not on a license. Buying an insurance policy probably isn't high on their list of priorities given that they need to send as much money home as possible.
If you want to be financially protected against that eventuality, yes. Here in Virginia, I'm only obliged to have liability insurance, so if I don't want to I don't have to insure my car nor worry about uninsured drivers wrecking me.
There's a growing list of absurdities in American society.
P90D
Member
Reminds me of a "scandal" in L.A. years ago when cops were in trouble for stopping old pickups with a lawn mover visible in the bed … that's racial profiling, and the cops argued it was logical to stop vehicles that consistently had drivers with warrants and tickets and suspended licenses "no use stopping a new minivan" etc.
Liability-only is what I thought un-insured or "under-insured" was meant to cover. My wife was hit while stopped at a red light surrounded by traffic, the other driver was a 20-something talking on her phone and calmly said that's why she didn't see the traffic come to an abrupt stop (our dashcam proved all traffic was stopped with no panic braking for a minute before she crashed without touching the brakes) so she was arrested for suspended license, no insurance, and unregistered (the car was in her father's name, with a different last name, and he was no longer in the country.) Fortunately Allstate took all that (and an ambulance ride for the kids to get checked for deceleration injuries in their car seats because there's no way to get a self-diagnosis of a kid to be sure they're not injured becasue they're in shock, they were okay, but spent the night watching some bruises that looked like they'd be hung from a tree) and just kept writing checks for the bills and replacing the car, etc. Otherwise, we'd be simply bankrupt … because Trixy was angry with her boyfriend.
The statistic I'm referencing was actual police stops in San Mateo county, I think 1000-2000 drivers over the course of a few hours during daylight on a weekday. I'd like to think a meaningful sample repeated across the USA would show that some zip codes are much worse than others.
I should call my insurance agent and see if I can get coverage for "absurdities" … e.g. Tesla acolytes just gave 10% of $TSLA to the guy who already cut its value from $407 to $113 … I'm somewhat profitable on $TSLA but that doesn't mean I ignore the last few years and the causes of the sell-offs.)
Maybe my Google searching is ineffective, but I haven't found any links to such statistics. I did see results for Moreno Valley, Riverside on June 1:
- 950 vehicles screened
- 7 Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) conducted
- 5 arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol
- 6 arrested for driving with a suspended driver’s license
- 25 citations issued for driving without a driver’s license
- 5 citations issued for driving with an expired license
- 7 vehicles were stored or impounded
- 3 citations issued for various traffic violations
KArnold
Active Member
P90D
Member
When I writing that post I tried to find the email I received, it was a "police blotter" PSA about DUI checkpoints, but that topic is haystacks of hits with mostly unremarkable, though still appalling statistics. The one that struck me, I have to concede to perhaps exaggerating for impressive round numbers, was San Mateo County in May.
I agree with most of your points, though I disagree that the premise is applicable as a binary decision as stated in the Trolley Problem.
1) Trolley problem makes no allowance for mitigation. It assumes only two possible (hit one person, or many; hit pedestrians or a bus). It makes no allowance for mitigating actions, like braking, thus reducing impact speed, the difference in protection to passengers offered by the bus, versus no protection for the pedestrians, and steering the car in a direction other than the bus or the pedestrians (or your added tree). Spaces exist between thos choices, which could result in missing everyone, or suffering less damage due to glancing impact.
2) The obvious choice if you have to hit SOMETHING, is the bus. Pedestrians have zero protection, whereas the bus passengers have tons of bus to mitigate impact, and the driver has air bags and seat belts.
Similar threads
- Article
