Autonomous vehicles are quickly emerging as the next innovation that will change society in radical ways. Champions of this new technology say that driverless cars, which are programed to obey the law and avoid collisions, will be safer than human controlled vehicles. But how do we program these vehicles to act ethically? Should we trust computer programmers to determine the most ethical response to all possible scenarios the vehicle might encounter? And who should be held responsible for the bad − potentially lethal−decisions these cars make? Our hosts take the wheel with Harvard psychologist Joshua Greene, author of "Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?"
Recorded live at Cubberley Auditorium on the Stanford campus with support from theSymbolic Systems Programand theMcCoy Center for Ethics in Society.
Live from Cubberley Auditorium at Stanford University, Ken and Laura Maguire, Philosophy Talk director of research, discuss a familiar topic: bad drivers. Between drinking, texting, and standard human error, driving is one of the most dangerous responsibilities that humans are entrusted with every day. But could the dawn of driverless cars controlled by computer algorithms change everything? Sure, computers may be safer drivers than humans on average, but can they care about human life the same way that people can?
哈佛大学心理学教授约书亚·格林(Joshua Greene)加入了肯和劳拉的讨论，讨论无人驾驶汽车的出现带来的道德困境。乔什承认，人们很难接受把自己的决策能力交给电脑，但他解释说，电脑驾驶最终会带来一个更安全的世界。尽管如此，对“机械化道德”的警告还是有道理的——我们能相信计算机做出道德上令人担忧的决定吗?Josh解释说，从神经科学的角度来看，道德决定就像其他任何决定一样，意味着它们可以被编入计算机算法，就像命令计算机向左或向右一样容易。
在最后一个环节，肯，劳拉和乔什回答了观众关于道德机械化的问题。一位律师指出，从保险到产品设计等各个领域的道德问题每天都必须被量化。一名学生指出，自动驾驶汽车可能会偏向自己的乘客，导致不同社会经济阶层的乘客之间不一致。其他听众关注的是自动驾驶汽车的特定问题，但Josh强调，除了挑剔的例外，任何一种无人驾驶技术都需要某种量化的、程序化的道德系统。现在的挑战只是决定该如何建立这个系统。
Comments(2)
Gerald Fnord
Sunday, July 30, 2017 -- 10:57 AM
Driverless cars: my will be doneAs a moral being and, significantly, one who privileges ratiocination over passion and reflex, I should actively _prefer_ that a car with much faster reaction times and otherwise capable of driving much better than I can would implement my moral decisions than I. I would otherwise risk momentary weakness of the body or spirit's interference with the judgements I would make were I _not_ about to crash…and, preferably, when I'm not in a misanthropic mood.
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, December 5, 2019 -- 10:12 AM
In 2017 I was not too worried2017年，我还不太担心无人驾驶汽车。现在想想，再看看其他的交通事故(人们忙着发短信或打电话，无暇顾及自己的安全;摩托车，本来就不该在路上行驶;骑自行车不遵守交通法规的;等等)，我意识到我们正在接近交通熵:在这个饱和点上，在安全操作任何车辆(无论是无人驾驶还是有人驾驶)的同时，跟踪不断增加的危险几乎是不可能的。我正在考虑完全不开车了——尽管至少会很不方便。