Move over, SawStop ...

Rational thinking would state that trains run on a schedule, the switch would be locked, and for better or worse the five were not supposed to be there in the first place.

So how can I make a decision more rational than the scheduler, even if I had the key to the lock.

why do sawstop have to move over do they have a bandsaw product too

seems like a good idea but i think they need to make a razor knife that will not cut the operator and also wood that has no splinters

And there in lies the rub. The "disconnected" part.

Now, as promised, let's bring this back to technology, AI and most certainly, people. Let's talk specifically about autonomous vehicles, but please avoid the rabbit hole and realize that the concept applies to just about any where AI is used and people are involved. Autonomus vehicles (AV) are just one example.

Imagine it's X years from now and AV's are fairly common. Imagine that an A V is traveling down the road, with its AI in complete control of the vehicle. The driver is using one hand get a cup of coffee from the built-in Keurig machine and choosing a Pandora station with the other. He is completely oblivious to what's happening outside of his vehicle.

Now imagine that a 4 year old runs out into the road. The AI uses all of th e data at its disposal (speed, distance, weather conditions, tire pressure, etc.) and decides that it will not be able to stop in time. It checks the input from its 360° cameras. Can't go right because of the line of par ked cars. They won't slow the vehicle enough to avoid hitting the kid. Using facial recognition the AI determines that the mini-van on the left contains

Now the AI has to make basically the same decision as in my first scenario: Kill 1 or kill 5. For the AI, it's as easy as it was for us, right?

"Bye Bye, kid. You should have stayed on the sidewalk."

No emotion, right? Right, not once the AI is programmed, not once the initi al AI rules have been written, not once the facial recognition database has been built. The question is who wrote those rules? Who decided it's OK to kill a young kid to save the lives of 5 rickety old folks? Oh wait, maybe it's better to save the kid and let the old folks die. They've had a full life. Who wrote that rule? In other words, someone(s) have to decide whose life is worth more than another's. They are essentially standing on a bridg e deciding whether to push the guy or not. They have to write the rule. They are either going to kill the kid or push the car into the other lane.

I, for one, don't think that I want to be sitting around that table. Having to make the decisions would be one thing. Having to sit next to the person that would push the guy off the bridge with a gleam in his eye would be a totally different story.

Then there is the added input of the possible wealth of those rickety old people or the political power the office holder holds and the disruption to the economy or social power.

Who lives and who dies would have to be state mandated or lawsuits filed on the programmer would ensue.

LOL!

YBTJ

Hell man. I'd like a razor SHAVER that cuts the whiskers but does not cut me.

The problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the AI has only human eyes for sensors. It sees the four year old on radar near the side of the road, detects a possible hazard, and slows down before arriving near the four year old.

No, you are adding "what if's to the given restraints. This is easy, you either choose to move the switch or not. There is no other situation to consider.

Again you are adding what-if's.

However, you have no participated in a murder. How do you look in orange?

We're not talking about reality, here. ;-)

Right. If it did, it wouldn't be "AI".

ROTF

Gee, I don't know which of my 2 comments to post first...

No, the problem is that you did not read the description of the scenario carefully enough. "Can't go right because of the line of parked cars." Unless the radar is airborne or can see through metal, it won't detect the kid in time.

But - and this is big but - it ain't about the seeing of the kid or not. You could shoot a thousand arrows through the the scenario. It was never meant to be perfect. The point is that there are still humans involved that have to write the rules related which person or persons to kill.

People have to decide when it's OK to push the big guy off the bridge.

I tried, I really tried:

"Please just accept that the situation is as stated and that you only have

Precisely!

I understand what you are saying, but I would consider them inherent to the scenario.

Snip>

Ok, then I opt to let er fly, and not interfere since morals or values cannot be a part of the scenario without it being a "what if".

LOL. Yeah well blame Derby for leaving out details to consider. ;~)

LOL. Yeah well blame Derby for leaving out details to consider. ;~)