Self-Driving Car Dilemmas Reveal That Moral Choices Are Not Universal. Maxmen, A. 562(7728):469–470.
Self-Driving Car Dilemmas Reveal That Moral Choices Are Not Universal [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Survey maps global variations in ethics for programming autonomous vehicles. [Excerpt] When a driver slams on the brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing the road illegally, she is making a moral decision that shifts risk from the pedestrian to the people in the car. Self-driving cars might soon have to make such ethical judgments on their own – but settling on a universal moral code for the vehicles could be a thorny task, suggests a survey of 2.3 million people from around the world. [] The largest ever survey of machine ethics1, published today in Nature, finds that many of the moral principles that guide a driver's decisions vary by country. For example, in a scenario in which some combination of pedestrians and passengers will die in a collision, people from relatively prosperous countries with strong institutions were less likely to spare a pedestrian who stepped into traffic illegally. [...] The survey, called the Moral Machine, laid out 13 scenarios in which someone's death was inevitable. Respondents were asked to choose who to spare in situations that involved a mix of variables: young or old, rich or poor, more people or fewer. [...] [] No matter their age, gender or country of residence, most people spared humans over pets, and groups of people over individuals. These responses are in line with rules proposed in what may be the only governmental guidance on self-driving cars: a 2017 report by the German Ethics Commission on Automated and Connected Driving. [] But agreement ends there. When the authors analysed answers from people in the 130 countries with at least 100 respondents, they found that the nations could be divided into three groups. One contains North America and several European nations where Christianity has historically been the dominant religion; another includes countries such as Japan, Indonesia and Pakistan, with strong Confucian or Islamic traditions. A third group consists of Central and South America, as well as France and former French colonies. The first group showed a stronger preference for sacrificing older lives to save younger ones than did the second group, for example. [...]
@article{maxmenSelfdrivingCarDilemmas2018,
  title = {Self-Driving Car Dilemmas Reveal That Moral Choices Are Not Universal},
  author = {Maxmen, Amy},
  date = {2018-10},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  volume = {562},
  pages = {469--470},
  issn = {0028-0836},
  doi = {10.1038/d41586-018-07135-0},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07135-0},
  abstract = {Survey maps global variations in ethics for programming autonomous vehicles.

[Excerpt] When a driver slams on the brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing the road illegally, she is making a moral decision that shifts risk from the pedestrian to the people in the car. Self-driving cars might soon have to make such ethical judgments on their own -- but settling on a universal moral code for the vehicles could be a thorny task, suggests a survey of 2.3 million people from around the world.

[] The largest ever survey of machine ethics1, published today in Nature, finds that many of the moral principles that guide a driver's decisions vary by country. For example, in a scenario in which some combination of pedestrians and passengers will die in a collision, people from relatively prosperous countries with strong institutions were less likely to spare a pedestrian who stepped into traffic illegally. [...] The survey, called the Moral Machine, laid out 13 scenarios in which someone's death was inevitable. Respondents were asked to choose who to spare in situations that involved a mix of variables: young or old, rich or poor, more people or fewer. [...]

[] No matter their age, gender or country of residence, most people spared humans over pets, and groups of people over individuals. These responses are in line with rules proposed in what may be the only governmental guidance on self-driving cars: a 2017 report by the German Ethics Commission on Automated and Connected Driving.

[] But agreement ends there. When the authors analysed answers from people in the 130 countries with at least 100 respondents, they found that the nations could be divided into three groups. One contains North America and several European nations where Christianity has historically been the dominant religion; another includes countries such as Japan, Indonesia and Pakistan, with strong Confucian or Islamic traditions. A third group consists of Central and South America, as well as France and former French colonies. The first group showed a stronger preference for sacrificing older lives to save younger ones than did the second group, for example. [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14648274,artificial-intelligence,automation,cognitive-biases,diversity,ethics,human-behaviour,variability},
  number = {7728}
}

Downloads: 0