korrents
David Edmonds

What David Edmonds thinks about self-driving cars

@david-edmonds · 8 positions · On ppll ↗

British philosopher and broadcaster, Distinguished Research Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, author of Would You Kill the Fat Man? and co-host of Philosophy Bites.

David Edmonds did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

Filter self-driving cars · Newest first
Topic
All 8self-driving cars 5AI alignment 2AI agents 1AI and jobs 1ambition 1creativity 1government 1
Sort
NewestOldest

Only David Edmonds on self-driving cars. See everyone on self-driving cars

5 dated positions, 2018, in their own words. Our reading of what David Edmonds has said — not written or endorsed by them.

  1. Our readingThe benefits of driverless cars will be immense despite significant costs.

    Their wordsThe driverless car will exact significant costs (lorry and taxi drivers will lose their livelihoods), but the benefits will be immense.

    ↗Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind?theguardian.com 1st of 6 in this piece

  3. Our readingTrolley-problem dilemmas will be extremely rare for driverless cars.

    Their wordsThe crucial point is to acknowledge that trolley dilemmas are going to be extremely rare.

    ↗Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind?theguardian.com 2nd of 6 in this piece

  5. Our readingLetting passengers or manufacturers choose a car's morality would be farcical.

    Their wordsIt would be farcical if passengers or manufacturers were free to choose their car’s morality for themselves

    ↗Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind?theguardian.com 4th of 6 in this piece

  7. Our readingGovernments should impose a general minimise-loss-of-life rule on driverless cars.

    government

    Their wordsA much more straightforward approach would be for the government to insist upon a general “minimise loss of life” rule.

    ↗Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind?theguardian.com 5th of 6 in this piece

  9. Our readingA driverless car's minimise-loss-of-life rule should apply even when its own passengers' lives are at stake.

    Their wordsMore controversially, the “minimise loss of life” code should apply even when the lives at stake include those of the passengers inside the driverless car.

    ↗Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind?theguardian.com 6th of 6 in this piece