The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles

TL;DR

This paper explores public opinions on moral decision-making algorithms in autonomous vehicles, revealing a paradox where people support utilitarian AVs but prefer safer, non-utilitarian options for themselves, with implications for regulation.

Contribution

It provides empirical insights into public preferences for AV moral algorithms and highlights potential unintended consequences of regulation on safety adoption.

Findings

Participants favor utilitarian AVs but prefer personal safety over moral sacrifice.

Regulation of utilitarian algorithms may delay adoption of safer AVs.

Public opinion supports moral algorithms but opposes strict regulation.

Abstract

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils-for example, running over pedestrians or sacrificing itself and its passenger to save them. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants to six MTurk studies approved of utilitarian 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. They would disapprove of enforcing utilitarian AVs, and would be less willing to buy such a regulated AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.