Trolley problems and autonomous vehicles: what does the public think?
by Xavier Symons | 27 Oct 2018 |
The “trolley problem” is a philosophical thought-experiment that has interested ethicists for over half a century (for a brief explanation of the problem, click here).
But the issue is not a matter of mere theoretical importance: as scientists and engineers have emphasised, the prospect of introducing autonomous vehicles on our roads raises questions of how we should program such vehicles to behave should they face “trolley-style” dilemmas.
A new study led by researchers from MIT analyses data from a massive online study of people’s decisions to prioritise lives in different variations of a car-based “trolley problem”.
To gather the data, researchers from MIT designed a multilingual online game called “Moral Machine”. People from 233 countries around the world logged on to the platform, with over 40 million decisions recorded.
The researchers found noticeable differences in the attitudes towards taking and sparing different lives among participants from Western and Asian backgrounds.
In one of the scenarios, participants needed to choose whether a self-driving car should continue straight ahead to kill three elderly pedestrians or swerve into a barricade to kill three youthful passengers. According to the results, participants from Western countries were more likely to prioritise younger lives over older lives, whereas those from Asian countries showed greater concern for sparing the lives of older persons.
Another variation asked participants whether the vehicle should spare the lives of law-abiding bystanders, or, alternately, law-breaking pedestrians who might be jaywalking. Participants from poorer countries with weaker institutions were more tolerant of jaywalkers versus pedestrians who cross legally.
Other scenarios tested people’s preferences for hitting homeless persons or doctors and executives. Participants from countries with a high level of economic inequality show greater gaps between the treatment of individuals with high and low social status.
Researchers say the survey offered a simple way for the public to contribute to ethical debates about self-driving cars, and that it provides valuable insights into which factors people think are important for autonomous cars to use in resolving ethical tradeoffs.
Yet some are critical of the attempt to introduce factors such as age and gender into deciding how the car should act. Last year the German transport ministry, adopting the recommendations of a 14-member ethics commission, prohibited using gender or age to resolve trolley dilemmas.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
I don’t know whether it is due to reading too much science fiction or not reading enough, but I find it impossible to take the transhumanist movement seriously. Some of its ideas about self-definition have seeped into mainstream culture, like transgenderism. However, its vision of a future in which homo sapiens has evolved into Morlocks and Eloi (as H.G. Wells foresaw in The Time Machine) seems almost preposterous, at least to me.
Perhaps to allay fears that scepticism from people like me will eventually lead to injustice against the more advanced sort of people, American transhumanists have drafted a transhumanist Bill of Rights (see below). This guarantees “sentient entities” everything from universal health care and internet coverage to “self-consciousness in perpetuity”.
One thing that I can never quite grasp about the earnest predictions of transhumanists is whether they actually care whether their schemes are practical. Uploading one’s consciousness to the internet sounds super but the obstacles in its path are more like the Himalayas than parking lot speedbumps – apart from all the ethical issues. Anyhow, good luck to them!
Perhaps to allay fears that scepticism from people like me will eventually lead to injustice against the more advanced sort of people, American transhumanists have drafted a transhumanist Bill of Rights (see below). This guarantees “sentient entities” everything from universal health care and internet coverage to “self-consciousness in perpetuity”.
One thing that I can never quite grasp about the earnest predictions of transhumanists is whether they actually care whether their schemes are practical. Uploading one’s consciousness to the internet sounds super but the obstacles in its path are more like the Himalayas than parking lot speedbumps – apart from all the ethical issues. Anyhow, good luck to them!
Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Oct 28, 2018
“Unbearable suffering” could be the new standardby Michael Cook | Oct 28, 2018
A Japanese anaesthetist, Yoshitaka Fujii, holds the record for most papers retracted – 169by | Oct 27, 2018
The RTE was concerned that the patient had not provided written consent.by Xavier Symons | Oct 27, 2018
Westerners are more likely to prioritise the young over the old.by Xavier Symons | Oct 27, 2018
4000 Swedes have had ID chips inserted into their thumbs.by Xavier Symons | Oct 27, 2018
And so the debate continues.IN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Oct 28, 2018
A large association of American doctors has adopted a position of 'engaged neutrality'BioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario