Dilemma over driverless cars as researchers put ‘sacrifice’ in spotlight

Instead self interest prevailed for hypothetical buyers preferring to purchase a auto that would save themselves even if it meant killing many others. Our life is in the pilot’s hands.

For instance, 76 per cent of respondents believe it is more moral for an autonomous vehicle, should such a circumstance arise, to sacrifice one passenger rather than 10 pedestrians, researchers said.

The authors of this study note that the benefits of autonomous vehicles are numerous and include significantly eliminating the number of traffic accidents that occur each year, reducing pollution, increasing traffic efficiency, and enabling the elderly and disabled to move around more easily.

In a series of surveys published Thursday in the journal Science, researchers asked people what they believe a driverless auto ought to do in the following scenario: A group of pedestrians are crossing the street, and the only way the vehicle can avoid hitting them is by swerving off the road, which would kill the passengers inside. What if the passenger in the self-driving vehicle were a surgeon en route to a hospital to perform a life-saving surgery?

With human brains, these are split second decisions that can’t really be planned in advance.

These tradeoffs are where serious ethical debates may kick in, as well as technologies self-driving vehicle makers are coming up with to set rules for their autonomous projects.

The results were published online Thursday in the journal Science. The study calls this a utilitarian autonomous vehicle, which fits the utilitarian moral doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number.

As the authors allude to, this same question has come with other artificial intelligence technologies, including with drones and weapons that are increasingly operating without humans involved in the firing line. So when autonomous vehicles become the norm, do not forget to walk around in large groups.

Most people would like others to buy cars programmed to save the lives of pedestrians, but would themselves prefer to ride in a driverless vehicle that protected its own passengers at all costs, the researchers found.

For the study published Thursday, the researchers conducted six online surveys of USA residents between June and November 2015, asking participants how they would want their autonomous cars to behave in various scenarios.

New research has found most people think driverless cars programmed to sacrifice their passengers for the greater good are a good idea – but that not many would drive their family around in one.

They would also not want the government to regulate that cars should act in such a way.

After all this questioning, researchers concluded that building in these death options could deter people from buying utilitarian autonomous vehicles.

Optimisation Research Group leader Professor Toby Walsh says with self-driving cars less than a decade away, society needs to work out how they’re programmed. While actual implementation is still years away, early tests show driverless cars can handle a wide variety of driving conditions.

The survey, of course, was based around a thought experiment.

They began by finding out what would make self-driving cars most palatable to future passengers. Surprisingly, the study found that a majority of people agree with that philosophy set upon by Jeremy Bentham a couple centuries ago: choose the way to do less damage.

He added: “Life-and-death trade-offs are unpleasant, and no matter which ethical principles autonomous vehicles adopt, they will be open to compelling criticisms”. If the cars have to make a decision on which lives to put at risk, what should they choose?

Another issue is that we assume carmakers will be transparent about the algorithms they are using.

“To align moral algorithms with human values, we must start a collective discussion about the ethics of AVs – that is, the moral algorithms that we are willing to accept as citizens and to be subjected to as auto owners”. However, these same people would prefer to buy a auto that protects themselves and other passengers inside the vehicle as a priority.

“They want their own vehicle to protect them at all costs”.