In an article for Wired, research scientist Ashley Nunes writes about the need for legislation that regulates the use of human teleoperators that can assist robotaxis in emergency situations when human judgement is needed. “Self-driving technology can deliver considerable benefits to society, but realizing those benefits will require that safety and profitability go hand-in-hand,” writes Nunes.
Prof. Thomas Levenson writes for The Boston Globe about how to reduce gun violence, highlighting research showing that gun owners and their friends and family are most likely to be the victims of gun violence. “Many victims could be saved if it weren’t so easy to bring death upon themselves in their moments of greatest distress,” writes Levenson.
Speaking with Reuters reporters Guy Faulconbridge and Paul Sandle, Prof. Tim Berners-Lee calls for disrupting the power held by giant companies over how the internet is operated. “What naturally happens is you end up with one company dominating the field so through history there is no alternative to really coming in and breaking things up,” Berners-Lee explains. “There is a danger of concentration.”
Katharine Schwab of Fast Company writes about the Media Lab’s Moral Machine project, which surveyed people about their feelings on the ethical dilemmas posed by driverless vehicles. Because the results vary based on region and economic inequality, the researchers believe “self-driving car makers and politicians will need to take all of these variations into account when formulating decision-making systems and building regulations,” Schwab notes.
BBC News reporter Chris Fox writes that MIT researchers surveyed people about how an autonomous vehicle should operate when presented with different ethical dilemmas. Fox explains that the researchers hope their findings will “spark a ‘global conversation’ about the moral decisions self-driving vehicles will have to make.”
MIT researchers conducted a global survey to determine how people felt about the ethical dilemmas presented by autonomous vehicles, The Economist reports. Prof. Iyad Rahwan explains that he and his colleagues thought it was important to survey people from around the world as “nobody was really investigating what regular people thought about this topic.”
Popular Mechanics reporter Dave Grossman writes that MIT researchers surveyed more than 2 million people to gauge people’s opinions on the ethics of autonomous vehicles. Grossman explains that the researchers believe their findings demonstrate how “people across the globe are eager to participate in the debate around self-driving cars and want to see algorithms that reflect their personal beliefs.”
The results of the Media Lab’s “Moral Machine” survey provides a glimpse into how people will respond to the ethical dilemmas surrounding autonomous vehicle accidents. “The point here, the researchers say, is to initiate a conversation about ethics in technology, and to guide those who will eventually make the big decisions about AV morality,” writes Wired’s Aarian Marshall.
Using an online platform known as the “Moral Machine,” researchers at the Media Lab have surveyed more than two million people from 233 countries about how an autonomous vehicle should respond in a crash. “The Moral Machine game is similar to the infamous trolley problem,” writes Tracey Lindeman for Motherboard, “but calibrated for the autonomous car.”
A new study from Media Lab researchers highlights the result of an online survey that asked volunteers how a self-driving vehicle should respond to a variety of potential accidents. “Moral responses to unavoidable damage vary greatly around the world in a way that poses a big challenge for companies planning to build driverless cars,” writes Alex Hern in The Guardian.
A new paper by MIT researchers details the results of a survey on an online platform they developed, which asked respondents to make ethical decisions about fictional self-driving car crashes. “Millions of users from 233 countries and territories took the quiz, making 40 million ethical decisions in total,” writes James Vincent of The Verge.
Carolyn Johnson writes for The Washington Post about a new MIT study “that asked people how a self-driving car should respond when faced with a variety of extreme trade-offs.” According to Prof. Iyad Rahwan, “regulating AI will be different from traditional products, because the machines will have autonomy and the ability to adapt,” explains Johnson.
MIT researchers used an online platform known as the “Moral Machine” to gauge how humans respond to ethical decisions made by artificial intelligence, reports Jamie Leventhal for PBS NewsHour. According to postdoc Edmond Awad, two goals of the platform were to foster discussion and “quantitatively [measure] people’s cultural preferences.”
A new book by Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program, focuses on Harvey Washington Wiley’s “fight for pure food,” explains Joshua Johnson, host of NPR’s 1A. While food safety has improved, Blum believes “it’s not safe enough and that our safety mechanisms have been – as they were in Wiley’s time – weakened over the years.”
Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program, speaks with Radio Boston’s Deborah Becker about her book on Harvey Washington Wiley’s quest to make food safer in America. “I think we have a long way to go in being really transparent about what’s in food,” says Blum about current food safety protections.