Trolleys, crashes, and perception-a survey on how current autonomous vehicles debates invoke problematic expectations.

Suzanne Tolmeijer, Vicky Arpatzoglou, Luca Rossetto, Abraham Bernstein

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Suzanne TolmeijerInformation Systems, Socio-Technical Systems Design (WISTS), University of Hamburg, Vogt-Kölln-Straße 30, 22527 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8584-5656

Vicky ArpatzoglouDepartment of Informatics, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0135-9536

Luca RossettoDepartment of Informatics, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5389-9465

Abraham BernsteinDepartment of Informatics, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0128-4602

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ongoing debates about ethical guidelines for autonomous vehicles mostly focus on variations of the 'Trolley Problem'. Using variations of this ethical dilemma in preference surveys, possible implications for autonomous vehicles policy are discussed. In this work, we argue that the lack of realism in such scenarios leads to limited practical insights. We run an ethical preference survey for autonomous vehicles by including more realistic features, such as time pressure and a non-binary decision option. Our results indicate that such changes lead to different outcomes, calling into question how the current outcomes can be generalized. Additionally, we investigate the framing effects of the capabilities of autonomous vehicles and indicate that ongoing debates need to set realistic expectations on autonomous vehicle challenges. Based on our results, we call upon the field to re-frame the current debate towards more realistic discussions beyond the Trolley Problem and focus on which autonomous vehicle behavior is considered

Indexed as

Autonomous vehiclesEthical dilemmaEthics surveySubjective ethics

Identifiers

PMID38737783

DOI10.1007/s43681-023-00284-7

PMCPMC11078731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.