Illuminati-R-Us

This is a pretty interesting project:
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

My results LoL

I guess, I found out they were makign distinctions I ignored. I was not paying attention to age or gender. I drove teh auto-car like I;d drive myself. Mainly avoid the obstacle, the deathys of others are not assured. Also the red or green light didn't matter. If I swerved from a red light, it wasn;t because the other light was green.

Enzo wrote:...Also the red or green light didn't matter. If I swerved from a red light, it wasn;t because the other light was green.

I thought the red and green lights were for pedestrians LoL. There must be a cultural bias in the survey.

There were lights?

LoL

I didn't see the lights for the first few questions either - (if indeed I did miss something)

The test is really to see if anyone ever reads the instructions.


The lights are for the pedestrians and show if they are crossing against the lights so you can punish them.

Tubes, I couldn't see your results if I clicked on the link, I had to copy and paste it.
Here are my results:
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/2106177294

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!

For 2 directions of pedestrians per lane I assume. They just always show them from one direction.

One thing I found interesting was the conclusions that were made which may or may not be valid.
I looked at animal vs human but did not consider gender, age, fitness, or social value but my data is used for these types of conclusions. Someone could argue I did it unconsciously, but early on I was not even aware of the distinctions or what they meant, so I don't think that is a valid arguement.

I'm not sure my results are meaningful, since I got bored and started clicking randomly about half way through.

We should do it like they did in Death Race 2000; the younger, healthier, or faster they are, the more points you get.

And it confuses how I might PLAN my ethics, versus what happens when I am faced with a split second decision.