Literature DB >> 33649183

From driverless dilemmas to more practical commonsense tests for automated vehicles.

Julian De Freitas1, Andrea Censi2, Bryant Walker Smith3,4, Luigi Di Lillo5, Sam E Anthony6, Emilio Frazzoli2.   

Abstract

For the first time in history, automated vehicles (AVs) are being deployed in populated environments. This unprecedented transformation of our everyday lives demands a significant undertaking: endowing complex autonomous systems with ethically acceptable behavior. We outline how one prominent, ethically relevant component of AVs-driving behavior-is inextricably linked to stakeholders in the technical, regulatory, and social spheres of the field. Whereas humans are presumed (rightly or wrongly) to have the "common sense" to behave ethically in new driving situations beyond a standard driving test, AVs do not (and probably should not) enjoy this presumption. We examine, at a high level, how to test the common sense of an AV. We start by reviewing discussions of "driverless dilemmas," adaptions of the traditional "trolley dilemmas" of philosophy that have sparked discussion on AV ethics but have limited use to the technical and legal spheres. Then, we explain how to substantially change the premises and features of these dilemmas (while preserving their behavioral diagnostic spirit) in order to lay the foundations for a more practical and relevant framework that tests driving common sense as an integral part of road rules testing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  artificial intelligence; automated driving; ethics; policy; public health

Year:  2021        PMID: 33649183      PMCID: PMC7980438          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2010202118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   12.779


  24 in total

1.  Chasing vs. stalking: interrupting the perception of animacy.

Authors:  Tao Gao; Brian J Scholl
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Unsafe at any speed: the designed-in dangers of the American automobile. 1965.

Authors:  Ralph Nader
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  The ethics of clinical research in the Third World.

Authors:  M Angell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Autonomous Cars: In Favor of a Mandatory Ethics Setting.

Authors:  Jan Gogoll; Julian F Müller
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles.

Authors:  Jean-François Bonnefon; Azim Shariff; Iyad Rahwan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  'Moral machine' experiment is no basis for policymaking.

Authors:  Barry Dewitt; Baruch Fischhoff; Nils-Eric Sahlin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Life and death decisions of autonomous vehicles.

Authors:  Yochanan E Bigman; Kurt Gray
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age.

Authors:  G Gergely; Z Nádasdy; G Csibra; S Bíró
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1995-08

9.  Registering clinical trials.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; Drummond Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-23       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Why Trolley Problems Matter for the Ethics of Automated Vehicles.

Authors:  Geoff Keeling
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 3.525

View more
  2 in total

1.  Human injury-based safety decision of automated vehicles.

Authors:  Qingfan Wang; Qing Zhou; Miao Lin; Bingbing Nie
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2022-06-30

2.  Ethical dilemmas are really important to potential adopters of autonomous vehicles.

Authors:  Tripat Gill
Journal:  Ethics Inf Technol       Date:  2021-07-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.