• homesnatch@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      I assumed future case where Level 3+ autonomous driving was in play and the human is not the responsible party.

      • VulKendov@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        The human should always be attentive behind the wheel, autonomous driving or not. They should be just as liable as if they were driving the car themselves

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          That will be especially applicable to cars without the wheel or other controls at all.

          And before you say that an AI will never be able to do that, that’s already possible with a human operating the car remotely, it’s just not adopted yet

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Right, unless it’s that new Mercedes and you’re in traffic on one of a specific set of roads under 40 MPH.

      Think they’ve sold a handful.

  • MystikIncarnate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yup. The trolly problem is one of ethics and responsibility, not whether one person or several people die.

    The death of the people is irrelevant, your responsibility for those deaths is the point.

    I didn’t get it either until a good friend and I were discussing it and he said: forget the trolly. How about this, you’re walking down the street after eating at Subway (or some similar shop) and you have half a sandwich left, you pass by someone begging for food. You can either choose to give it to them or not. If you choose not to, and later that same day the person dies from starvation, are you responsible for their death because you didn’t give them the excess food you had?

    The dilemma is based on a few points, if you take action and the person dies, are you responsible for the death you caused, if you take no action are you responsible for deaths you could have avoided by taking action, when you chose not to?

    In OP’s post, legally, if you are the driver/operator of the vehicle, you are always, 100% responsible for anything the vehicle does, whether under autonomous control or not. This is the law. Whether you are morally at fault, is a matter of debate. You didn’t direct the car to run over people, but you also did not stop the car from running over the people.

    There’s an argument to be made about duty of care, etc.

    However, this is the root of the trolly problem.

    Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

      • MystikIncarnate
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        Legally, or morally?

        Maybe neither?

        IDK. I’m not going to start a philosophical debate here. Just asking for you to clarify.

          • MystikIncarnate
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Agreed. I won’t get into it, since the trolley problem has taught me that there’s a lot of opinions on it, which makes it seem relevant, but there’s nearly zero consensus on what the correct analysis of the situation is. At the end of the day, the dilemma is a near impossibility.

            The courts have made up their mind on it and that’s all I’m going to concern myself with for the moment.

    • HungryJerboa
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      This issue has been explored previously, and with a better example of the trolley problem that centers the ethical dilemma entirely on the autopilot.

      I do agree that in most situations, the driver retains full control over the vehicle, and therefore remains fully responsible, even if there’s a case to be made that the autopilot neglected the safety of others outside the car.

      However, I’d also argue that this example leaves a possibility where fault cannot be assigned to them: If the driver became aware of the hazards at a reasonable time (i.e. spotting the pedestrians just around a sharp bend, rather than 200m down a straightaway), and made every reasonable effort to stop within that time but could not. There are limits to the driver’s responsibility, but the most interesting cases are crashes that the autopilot is capable of preventing (even if the driver reasonably cannot), but fails to do so.

  • Chriszz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Since the fine is meaningless to Elon, this becomes an ethics problem. Swerve, killing 1 person and be charged with manslaughter—or kill 5 people and be found not guilty.

  • horsey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    6 months ago

    Realistically though, when incidents occur, Tesla pretends FSD wasn’t on and they’ll never pay anything.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    If they were restrained in the road against their will, I’d save 4 people and take the heat. But seeing as they are just hanging out in the middle of the street of their own volition, I’ma let autopilot handle it. /s

  • WreckingBANG@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    In Germany nobody cares about if Autopilot was on, because you are still the driver of the car and responsible for everything it does. The Law says you need to be able to react to it, if you do not you are the only one responsible

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    You could pretend to swerve but still clip them all except for the hot chick. Then jump and pretend to save her from your evil car. So that’s how you get lai…wait what was the question?