Hacker News Reader

I (perhaps somewhat naively) assumed that a self-driving car would be programmed to prioritise the occupants of the vehicle (as that most closely emulates the likely reactions of a human driver in that situation).

Self-driving cars are likely to be safer than human drivers anyway, so one has to consider how much risk there is of a situation like the Trolley Problem arising - i.e. not much.

View on HN

So here's the thing. The first time that an accident kills pedestrians with a self driving car involved the creator of that car will be open to a lawsuit. And in court the question of what that car should have been programmed to prioritize will come up. A response of we tried to emulate the likely reactions of a human driver in this situation won't hold up. The whole point of a self driving car as you said is that they are safer. In fact safer to the community as a whole. So if a car plows into crowd in order to avoid colliding with an obstacle and killing the rider. (something a real human would likely due without even realizing it) Would be grounds for that suit to award damages to the creator of the cars software.

It's not as simple as it sounds at first.

Actually, that's a good point - I hadn't considered the legal ramifications of such a stance. It's interesting that you mention people seeking damages from the creator of the car's software, because that makes the entire situation more complex.

As for the concept of "safer to the community as a whole" - well, the idea is that they're a safer product overall, and this is mostly targeted at the individual (i.e. "if you own a self-driving car, you're less likely to die"). If people have the knowledge that their cars may (in certain situations) elect to kill them in preference of others, then I doubt that self-driving cars will sell particularly well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com