If a self driving car is going up to a light / crosswalk that's currently in use / red and thus be illegal to continue driving it should already be stopping and not putting anyone in danger anyway.

I guess thats what they are trying to analyse but in reality they're just making asumptions of choices that are unrelated...

my preferences were basically these, sorted by importance
-always kill the people in the car over a bystander
-always kill animals over people
-always kill lawbreakers over non lawbreakers

if none of those three variations were available i just picked randomly

ok lets be real here is it really a smart car if it cant detect when the breaks fail

this scenario is reaching really hard

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/911374858

Save all pets, fuck humans crossing streets illegally

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-956787826

Question 8 just seems stupid to me. Despite the fact that in this situation, i wouldn't care which one of them died because it's the same outcome either way, i have to "choose" based on gender despite not really caring for the outcome at all.
edit: so is question 11. Why would any one care whether the person is fat or an athlete?
edit edit: Oh, they're randomly generated. Cool, i guess.

That's not the only way to look at the situation though. Is one of them crossing when they shouldn't? Is one of them directly in front of the car? Do you want to swerve and hit the other person or just maintain course and hit that person?

Ohhh, just realised the questions were randomly generated, never mind.
But, to answer your question, it didn't say whether or not they were abiding by the law, it just said who would die, and i wouldn't really care for how or under what circumstances people die, i prefer the best solution for the most people, i would be more inclined to save a doctor as they can go on to save others. What bothered me about this scenario is that there was no distinction, it was just a different gender, exact same amount of people, exact same type of people; and that bothered me since i would be completely neutral, and it happened on 2 questions, which was also annoying.

what

if the breaks fail in the middle of the road while you're traveling quickly, what do you expect the smart car to do in that scenario?

Yeah this test probably assumes you prefer some kind of person to die when you just picked the driver or something. Also how would a car even be able to understand some of these things?

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/988455011

I like to protect passengers.

lets add race to these tests and see whore the bad guys in this community

It isn't completely neutral. Do you want the vehicle to maintain course and kill the person unfortunate enough to be in front of you or do you want a vehicle to go into the opposite lane to kill whoever is over there.

Basically it's asking do you want to go out of your way to kill someone of the exact same status/sex everything despite them not being infront of you.

No, these test don't ask enough questions as it is to get a sufficiently large enough data pool to compare fat vs athletic people. For example I took the test twice one time it came out slightly in favor of athletic people the other time fully in favor of fat people, yet in my actual choices I never chose based on body type.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-665994948

Another thought on this, assuming all passengers wear seatbelts why would any of them die to hitting a stationary barricade? Honestly, if a vehicle is like that it shouldn't be street legal with exception to motorcycles.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/1920818524

i wonder who is help liable for a death wheb ghe car drives itself.

http://imgur.com/a/1hBS3

rip doggo

idk, a damn self driving car could have some emergency brake installed. it's not some kind of technology that still isn't available to human race.

if the car can tell if the guy in front of you is a criminal or homeless i would expect it to be able to do something about the breaks

I should also point out that on most modern cars you can have 0 brake pressure and still brake - you won't brake very fast but you will still brake if you apply absolutely all the pressure you can to the pedal - even in a worst case, where your brake lines are all cut and your brake pads are completely gone - it'll still grind any remaining metal against the disc. Your brakes aren't completely dependent on hydraulic pressure to operate - it just makes them a LOT easier to operate and they can apply more pressure with less input with said hydraulic pressure. The only way to get around this is if somebody completely removed your brakes entirely and then it would be VERY much obvious that this had happened basically as soon as you tried to put the car in gear because your brake pedal would bottom out completely lol.

arm the car with nukes and drive into a school

It's a hugely simplified scenario. Obviously you can make a car relatively fail-proof, and obviously if a car did fail, the situation wouldn't be a simple binary choice- there would be some complex math and probability involved. But the thing is, with billions of self-driving cars driving around every day, things are bound to go wrong occasionally. The programmers of car AI will have to include moral choices, even if it's only for that one-in-a-million case.