Question

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

First of all, I would say the technology might not make 100% safety. Also, people should not be controlled by technology, and people should control technology because I think that only people, human, think molal. I want to respect moral for life. If I was in this situation weather driverless car kills me or five pedestrians, I would chose to kill myself and save other five people instead of my live. I know it is easy to say like that. Like he said in this video" It's still going to involve trade-offs, and trade-offs often require ethics.", this problem is very complicated and connected with ethics. People can think ethically in usual but in an emergency situation, they stop think ethically and tend to save themselves first, so people say easily "in this situation, should save five people" but they do not want to buy the driverless car to kill themselves. Therefore, I think that people should more consider about the moral and ethics.

Already, in Japan, it starts to test of dreverless bus in public road. However, even if the driverless bus, always one driver is sitting in front of the handle because if when the bus is not working normally, the driver can drive the bus. I think driverlass car is very convenient and develop our society but the driver has responsibility to drive the car. People can act for responsibility but the technology cannot understand responsibility. Therefore, I think that in the future, even if the technology can make 100% safety, people should keep driving by themselves.

Answer 1

After reading this article, reader is left little confused. The logic of the article is not so clear. This article needs proof reading. Basically what the writer is trying to say is that technology should be controlled and governed by human as they have the faculty of decision making and understanding of morality which the technologies don't have of their own. But at the same time the writer also talks about human not acting morally in the cases of emergency. At the times of emergency not all human can think morally and act morally, so two contradictory points are mentioned in the same paragraph which is confusing. I think the writer is trying to say that humans should practice acting morally more often, and then control the unpredictable technologies. Also I think the main topic of this article is the use of automatic vehicles. The writer wants to convey that the humans have a sense of responsibility which machines do not have and even if everything has been checked, something can malfunction and the machine might not work properly, in that case there should be humans present there to avoid any accidents. The writer wants to say humans are always needed to keep the technologies in check, because the technologies do not have faculty of self control, morality and responsiblity. At the end the writer just advocates against automatic technology driving cars no matter how safe and accurate it becomes.