Customer Preferences and Implicit Tradeoffs in Accident Scenarios for Self-Driving Vehicle Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of self-driving vehicles is proceeding rapidly and with significant investment of resources. However, a full-scale deployment is not imminent. Among the challenges self-driving vehicles are facing, they will have to navigate complex ethical challenges. The algorithms governing their behavior will have to decide how to steer them in situations where accidents cannot be avoided. In some of these situations they will have to decide which of several potential parties to injure in the process. We investigate the preferences of Swiss customers for this decision by forcing a selection between simplified scenarios where a given number of car passengers or a given number of pedestrians will be killed in the accident. Both passengers and pedestrians can be adults or children. The passengers are explicitly identified as the respondent themselves and their family. While children are implicitly valued higher than adults, Swiss customers value passengers and pedestrians implicitly roughly equally, and assign increasingly higher marginal values to additional people, both passengers and pedestrians. These results seem to partially contradict similar studies conducted in other countries and recent statements by automotive companies, potentially indicating the need to adapt both corporate communications and steering algorithms in different geographies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".