自动驾驶：出现意外的时候选择保护车内的人，还是最大化减少伤亡？

[月下独酌]

飞行员坠机之前都尽可能避开人多的地区，他们那样也算选了的吧？

这condition不一样。。。坠机都是必死啊

 

[XCYM]

代步工具还是机器人？

代步工具保护乘客。很简单，不保护主人的保镖，没人会花钱雇佣的。

机器人尽量减少对人类的伤害。选择最小伤害意味着乘客与外面平等。原因同样简单，机器人如果没这限制，就是大规模杀伤武器。就不能民用。

自行车算是哪一类呢？觉得更像是机器人。

 

[uglyducking]

这个话题太沉重，以后决定宅在家里不出门。

 

[他乡枫叶]

这文章有意思
http://gizmodo.com/your-self-driving-car-will-be-programmed-to-kill-you-de-1782499265

Situation A:
选择撞死一堆人还是选择撞死一个人？
Situation B:
选择撞死行人，还是撞死车里的人？
Situation C:
选择撞死车里的人，还是很多行人？

“Most people want to live in in a world where cars will minimize casualties. But everybody wants their own car to protect them at all costs.”

A new study published in Science shows there’s a big disconnect between the kinds of ethical programming we want these vehicles to have, and the kinds of cars we actually want to ride in. Surveys done last year demonstrate that people tend to take a utilitarian approach to safety ethics. That is, they generally agree that a car with one rider should swerve off the road and crash to avoid a crowd of 10 pedestrians. But when the survey’s respondents were asked if they’d actually ride in a vehicle programmed in this way, they said no thanks.

以后有flying car了，可以选择飞起来吧？

 

[一心无住]

以后有flying car了，可以选择飞起来吧？

无论多少选择，都有可能存在楼主说的选择难题的。