An Alternate Account on the Ethical Implications of Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the widespread popularity of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), researchers have been exploring the ethical implications of AVs. Researchers believe that empirical experiments can provide insights into human characterization of ethically sound machine behavior. Previous research indicates that humans generally endorse utilitarian AVs, however, this paper explores an alternative account on the discourse of ethical decision-making in AVs. We refrain from favoring consequentialism or non-consequential ethical theories, and argue that human moral decision-making is pragmatic, or in other words, ethically and rationally bounded. We hold the perspective that our moral preferences shift based on various externalities and biases. To further this concept, we conduct two Amazon Mechanical Turk studies to investigate factors, such as, the `degree of harm', and `level of affection', which influence people's moral decision-making. Our experimental findings seem to suggest that human moral judgements cannot be wholly deontological or utilitarian. We discovered that as the degree of harm decreased, people became less utilitarian (more deontological), and as the level of affection increased, people became less utilitarian (more deontological). These findings offer evidence on the ethical variations in human decision-making processes and refutes the view that aim to advocate application of a specific moral framework based on empirical evidence. The findings also offer useful insights for policymakers to explore the overall public perception on the ethical implications of AV.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".