- "blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle"
I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawed, and kill way more people. This is sort of a trolley problem, and we suck at solving those.
Because: incompetent killer humans are a diffuse force of nature; incompetent killer AI's are a centralized, attributable malefactor. We humans love identifiable malefactors, evildoers; love identifying and spotlighting and ostracizing them. It's a honed evolutionary trait. We've no atavistic instinct for the opposite, utilitarianism—for minimizing harm through "rational" (?) number-crunching, even where it conflicts with "obvious" (?) morality. Should we? Or is the other side of the trolley switch the correct one?
I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawed, and kill way more people. This is sort of a trolley problem, and we suck at solving those.
Because: incompetent killer humans are a diffuse force of nature; incompetent killer AI's are a centralized, attributable malefactor. We humans love identifiable malefactors, evildoers; love identifying and spotlighting and ostracizing them. It's a honed evolutionary trait. We've no atavistic instinct for the opposite, utilitarianism—for minimizing harm through "rational" (?) number-crunching, even where it conflicts with "obvious" (?) morality. Should we? Or is the other side of the trolley switch the correct one?