Toulouse School of Economics, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, Center for Research in Management, CNRS, University of Toulouse Capitole, Toulouse, France.
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA.
Science. 2016 Jun 24;352(6293):1573-6. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2654.
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils, such as running over pedestrians or sacrificing themselves and their passenger to save the pedestrians. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants in six Amazon Mechanical Turk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that is, AVs that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good) and would like others to buy them, but they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect their passengers at all costs. The study participants disapprove of enforcing utilitarian regulations for AVs and would be less willing to buy such an AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.
自动驾驶汽车（AV）应该会减少交通事故，但有时它们将不得不面临两难选择，例如，撞向行人，或者牺牲自己和乘客来拯救行人。定义有助于自动驾驶汽车做出这些道德决策的算法是一个艰巨的挑战。我们发现，六项亚马逊土耳其机器人研究参与者认可功利主义自动驾驶汽车（即，为了更大的利益而牺牲乘客的自动驾驶汽车），并希望其他人购买，但他们自己宁愿乘坐不惜一切代价保护乘客的自动驾驶汽车。研究参与者不赞成对自动驾驶汽车强制执行功利主义法规，并且不太愿意购买此类自动驾驶汽车。因此，为功利主义算法制定法规可能会通过推迟采用更安全的技术而导致伤亡人数增加，这是一个悖论。
