There’s nothing like a good moral/philosophical discussion. There’s nothing like indulging in the ancient art of gently arguing and probing the thoughts of others, or in the absence of others, of having a good old debate with yourself. Personally, I find the latter type are easier to win.
In any case,
shows us how it is done and I hope that this discussion makes for a lively comments section.Enjoy.
TJB.
Argument 1, by Lance Sharpe
We do not need to consult philosophers to find out the answer. All we need is a standard Economics textbook and pervasive technological surveillance, including (of course) facial recognition. This combination would enable the car to calculate, instantaneously to all intents and purposes, the relative net benefit to the economy of each individual under consideration in that instance, projected over their lifetime. Using a form of discounted flow analysis (DCF), each person's lifetime net value can be expressed as a value in present-day prices.
As a simple example, suppose the lifespan of average person is assumed to be 80 years. The child of, say, 5 years old who has suddenly run into the road will live another 75 years, of which around 40 will be productive. The pedestrian waiting to cross the road who is, say, 70 years old, has only 15 years to go, none of which will be productive (unless they happen to be a professor or similar). The decision for the car is clear-cut: avoid killing the child.
A more nuanced approach would be to take lifestyle factors into account as well as ago. Let's suppose the person in the car's path is a teenager, and the person waiting to cross the road is too. However, the computer network of which the facial recognition is a component recognises that teen A is a keen student who volunteers in a homeless shelter every weekend, while teen B spends his time smoking and engaging in dangerous and illegal spirits. The life expectancy of teen B is consequently less than that of teen A. Once again, the car's choice is clear.
While this sort of calculation may appear harsh, it will have a beneficial effect on both individuals and society. People, being rational, will choose the least risky options for themselves. Knowing that in a life or death situation their lifestyle may cause a driverless car to kill them, people will do all they can to improve their life chances in such a situation. Society will gain by having to devote fewer resources to dealing with smoking-related diseases, lower productivity, and the emergency services.
Yet again Adam Smith's declaration in 1776 that when individuals act in their own self-interest the whole society benefits is proven to be correct.
Argument 2, by Fred Terryman
Lance Sharpe has made the case for economic theory combined with intrusive technology to solve the driverless car problem: who to kill given two alternatives. Sharpe is wrong for several reasons.
His approach has a facade of objectivity. However, like all forms of cost-benefit analysis, the seemingly neutral figures conceal implicit biases. For example, being productive is defined, without saying so, as being in employment. Thus the 70 year old is deemed to be unproductive. This ignores the possibility that they may help others to be "productive", perhaps by looking after grandchildren while the parents are at work. It also denigrates the value of their experience and wisdom to zero.
Discounted Cash Flow is itself a flawed technique. It assumes the assistance of one rate of interest which remains constant over many years. It also rests on the assumption that a given amount of money is worth more now to an individual than the same amount in the future, even in the absence of inflation. This ignores the possibility that people may be willing to defer gratification.
Moreover, the god of rationality is invoked. Yet research, as well as lived experience, tells us that people do not necessarily act in a way that an economist would describe as rational, even if they are in possession of perfect knowledge.
Finally, the risk-taking areas of people's brains are not fully developed until their early 20s, according to research. Therefore whatever incentives or disincentives prevail, teens are likely to continue to behave in ways that make us oldies gasp with fright.
Argument 3, by Terry Freedman
Over the last couple of days both Lance Sharpe and Fred Terryman have been discussing this issue. Lance Sharpe believes that Economics and technology can solve the problem. Terryman argued that Sharpe’s analysis rests on faulty assumptions and hidden biases.
However, this is a non-problem – or should be. Here's why: if you are a good owner you will be continuously scanning the road ahead, behind and on both sides for potential hazards. This is the basis of advanced driving. To an advanced driver, nothing happens "suddenly" (surely the most overused word in road traffic accidents?). The child who runs out into the middle of the road didn't just beam down, as in Star Trek: they came from somewhere!
An advanced driver, seeing a child running along the pavement (sidewalk) sees a child who may at any moment run into the road. A pedestrian staring at a phone while walking presents another hazard. A bus stop suggests the possibility of someone running across the road without looking. A sign declaring the proximity of a school is another trigger.
In fact, every other person and object on the road is evaluated and assessed for its hazard potential. According to statistics I saw some years ago, drivers who took and passed the advanced driving test administered by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) had 80% fewer accidents than drivers who had not taken a course in advanced driving, Intriguingly, though perhaps not surprising, even drivers who took the test and failed had 50% fewer accidents, than motorists who hadn't taken the course at all.
If human beings can achieve this level of safety, how much more so should artificial intelligence be able to? As Matthew Avery, director of research at Thatcham Research told RoadSmart, the magazine of the IAM:
"The pedestrian/pram scenario is a red herring. As a driver you will probably never face this specific scenario; the frequency of this type of event is rare because you're a safe driver and you can anticipate danger. These cars can be programmed to do the same, but to process and react to situations even faster and more decisively than humans."
Which of these arguments do you think is the correct one?
Note
Both Lance Sharpe and Fred Terryman are Terry Freedman, who not only talks to himself, but argues with himself – and often loses.
Thanks, Thomas 😀
I go with the argument presented by Terry Freedman. That Lance guy should stick to punching his calculator buttons. Professor Freedman argues for better driver training, and I have to agree. Anticipate situations as he's described, and others such a cat on the left side of the road, and a dog on the right. Although a dog darting across the road after a cat is not a child, it may be the beloved pet of a child who will cry if you run it over. Not to mention the wheelwell mess.
I also wonder why neither Lance nor Fred (surely, a good lad) mentioned the simpler choice when two people are in danger at the same time. Instead of running face analysis, calculating discounts, and checking records for weed busts or shoplifting, hit the brakes.
All in all, I say be like Terry. Pay attention on the road.