Final draft of morality of self driving cars blog post.

blogContent/posts/other/morality-of-self-driving-cars.md

@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ that we are still discussing concerning self driving cars. The protagonist Detec
 has an almost unhealthy amount of distrust towards
 robots. In the movie, a robot decided to save Spooner's life over a 12 year old girl in a car accident. 
 This ignites the famous ethical debate of the trolley problem, but, now with artificial intelligence.
-The question boils down to this: are machines capable of making moral decisions. The 
- surface level answer from the movie is **no** when it presents Spooner's car crash antidote.
+The debate boils down to this: are machines capable of making moral decisions. The 
+ surface level answer from the movie is presented as **no** when Spooner's presents car crash antidote.
 This question parallels the discussion that we are currently having with self driving cars.
 When a self driving car is presented with two options which result in the loss of life,
 what should it choose?
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ When surveyed, most people say that they would prefer to have self driving cars
 approach towards the trolley problem. A utilitarian approach would try to minimize the
  total amount of harm. MIT made a neat [website](http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) where it presents you with a 
 bunch of "trolley problems" where you have to decide who dies. At the end of the survey the
-website presents you with a list of observed preferences you made with the trolley problem.
+website presents you with a list of observed preferences you made when deciding who's life was more important to save.
 The purpose of the trolley problem is merely to ponder what decision a self driving car
 should make when **all** of its alternatives are depleted. 
 
@@ -52,32 +52,32 @@ consequentialism to examine this problem.
 
 ![Moral Machine](media/selfDrivingCars/moralMachine6.png)
 
-Self driving cars are expected to reduce car accidents by 90% by cutting out human error. If people
+Self driving cars are expected to reduce car accidents by 90% by eliminating human error. If people
 decide to not use self driving cars due to the utilitarian moral engine, we run the 
 risk of actually loosing more lives. Some people have actually argued that since
-artificial intelligence is incapable of making moral decisions, they should actually take
+artificial intelligence is incapable of making moral decisions, they should take
 no action at all when there is a situation which will always results in the loss of life. 
 In the frame of the trolley problem, 
 it is best for the artificial intelligence to not pull the lever. I will argue that 
 it is best for self driving cars to not make ethical
-decisions because, it would result in the highest adoption rate of self driving cars which in
-the long run would save the most lives. The likelihood that a car is actually presented with
+decisions because, it would result in the highest adoption rate of self driving cars. This would end up
+saving the most lives in the long run. Plus, the likelihood that a car is actually presented with
  a trolley problem is pretty slim.
 
 The discussion over the moral decisions a car has to make is almost fruitless. It turns out 
 that humans are not even good at making moral decisions in emergency situations. When we make rash decisions
 influenced by anxiety, we are heavily influenced by prejudices and self motives. Despite our own shortcomings when it
 comes to decision making, that does not mean that we can not do better with self driving cars. However,
-we need to realize that it actually is the mass adoption of self driving cars which will save the most lives, not
-the moral engine which we program the cars with. We cannot let the moral engine of the self driving 
-car get in the way of adoption. 
+we need to realize that it is the mass adoption of self driving cars which will save the most lives, not
+the moral engine which we program the cars with. We can not let the moral engine of the self driving 
+cars get in the way of adoption. 
 
-The conclusion I made parallels Spooner's problem with robots in the movie *I Robot*. Spooner was so mad at the robots for
-saving his own life rather than the girl that he never realize that if it was not for the robots, neither of them would
+The conclusion that I made parallels Spooner's problem with robots in the movie *I Robot*. Spooner was so mad at the robots for
+saving his own life rather than the girl's, he never realized that if it was not for the robots, neither of them would
 have survived that car crash. Does that mean we can't do better than not pulling the lever? Well... not exactly. 
 Near the end of the movie a robot was presented with another trolley problem, but, this time he managed to
 find a way which saved both parties. Without reading into this movie too deep, this illustrates how the early
-adoption of the robots ended up saving tons of lives like Spooners. It is only as the technology fully develops 
+adoption of artificial intelligence ended up saving tons of lives like Spooners. It is only when the technology fully develops 
 is when we can start to avoid the trolley problem completely.