Carolyn Y. Johnson, The Washington Post Published 10:31 am PDT, Wednesday, October 24, 2018 Imagine this scenario: the brakes fail on a self-driving car as it hurtles toward a busy crosswalk. A homeless person and a criminal are crossing in front of the car. Two cats are in the opposing lane. Should the car swerve to mow down the cats or plow into two people? It’s a relatively straightforward ethical dilemma, as moral quandaries go. And people overwhelmingly prefer to save human lives over animals, according to a massive new ethics study that asked people how a self-driving car should respond when faced with a variety of extreme trade-offs – dilemmas to which more than 2 million people responded. But what if the choice is between two elderly people and a pregnant woman? An athletic person or someone who is obese? Passengers vs. pedestrians? The study, published in Nature, identified a few preferences that were strongest: People opt to save people over pets, to spare the many over the few and to save children and pregnant women over older people. But it also found other preferences for sparing women over men, athletes over obese people and higher status people, such as… Read full this story
- Bison in Arizona? The story behind Grand Canyon National Park's bison bind
- From climate to fry bread, 125 reasons to love Arizona
- Heroin addict finding sobriety after jail and detox at a recovery home
- Trayvon Martin three years later: Pain, anger and sadness still haunt family and friends as they 'pray for the truth'
- 'The Walking Dead' Season 6, Episode 2 Recap: The Alexandrians must learn to 'JSS' (just survive somehow) in face of attack
Self-driving cars will have to decide who should live and who should die. Here's who humans would kill. have 269 words, post on www.sfgate.com at October 24, 2018. This is cached page on Law Breaking News. If you want remove this page, please contact us.